Let’s end the pseudo debate: ask your politician if they accept the scientific consensus on climate change

“Belief” is a troubling word when used within the context of the climate debate.

Frequently people will ask me “Do you believe in climate change?” as if it is a matter of personal opinion.

I always answer (politely of course) “I accept the 97% consensus of climate scientists”. My personal views are of no consequence to the reality of climate change – it is simply what the overwhelming evidence has told me.

Facts are independent of opinion. And while every one has a right to accept or reject the evidence of climate change, personal belief does not alter the robust and well-tested scientific theory (not hypothesis) that humanity is changing the planet’s atmosphere.

Within the scientific community this fact is a no longer controversial – nor has it been for decades. The fact that the science is settled has been obscured by the denial movement, sceptical politicians and the Murdoch press. In doing so they have impeded action on climate change.

As we head into Election 2013 climate change will be front and centre once more with Tony Abbott swearing a “blood oath” to axe-the-tax. The Coalition’s attack on the “carbon tax” has been central to undermining the Gillard government’s legitimacy. Their scare campaign – in addition to Labor’s own incompetence and failure to explain their policies to the electorate – has more than likely delivered them office in September.

However, the Coalition’s climate policies are now coming under increasing scrutiny – especially from business who regard their ‘Direct Action Plan” as either inadequate or a bit of a joke. The business community prefers an emissions trading scheme.

Climate change is central to discussions about our nations future; it will impact business, individuals and communities. Thus we should be asking our politicians if they accept or reject the scientific consensus.

It is time for the pseudo debate to end.

Let’s stop talking about whether or not global warming has “paused” for 17 years or if climate change is a Marxist/Rothschild plot to take over the globe.

We should ask our politicians “Do you accept the consensus of 97% of climate scientists?”

Australia’s politicians in the spotlight: uknowispeaksense survey

I highly recommend the research on the acceptance or rejection of climate science of our politicians by Mike from uknowispeaksense. See his work here:

He has represented this a couple of graphs. What is surprising is that most politicians accept the science, as indicated in the following pie charts.

House of Representatives:

And in the Senate:

However if you dig into the numbers, far less conservative politicians accept the scientific consensus. Still, it is worth noting both the majority of voters and politicians accept the science.

So why the hold up?

The denial movement has created a powerful aura of invincibility around itself and that we should all pay attention to their arguments. However, the reality is that they are tiny in numbers but extremely vocal. What they lack in numbers they make up for in the vehemence in prosecuting their anti-science campaign.

The article below from The Conversation is also relevant to this discussion and proposes eight questions we should be asking of all our politicians (see below).

As we head into an election, you’d be justified in asking what your local member is basing their climate change decisions on.

If your MP says “I don’t support policies to prevent dangerous climate change” because “I don’t believe climate change is occurring” or “I’m not sure climate change is human caused” is this position justifiable simply because it’s his or her personal opinion?

In a recent widely republished blog post on ethicsandclimate.org, Brown argues government officials have an ethical responsibility to understand the state of climate change science. Politicians hold crucial leadership positions where they can enact policies that can prevent or minimise great harm. These policies, to put it bluntly, affect millions, if not billions, of people around the world.

Governments and elected officials cannot ethically choose to rely on their own uninformed opinion or ideology instead of the scientific consensus.

The long-standing consensus of climate scientists and the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence warn us that constituents and governments are causing great harm through greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, Brown says, politicians may not appeal to their personal opinions on climate science. They are not justification for not taking action.

Brown refers to a number of US politicians who hold the position that they don’t support climate policies because they are not convinced by the science. Brown argues that the media has largely failed to hold them accountable.

The same issue afflicts many Australianpoliticians – and the Australian media. Very rarely have politicians who reject climate science in Australia been asked to explain their justifications on scientific grounds.

According to the Political Leaders and Climate Change Index (PLCCI) published in 2010 by the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, the number of politicians in the parliament who either don’t or won’t accept the science of climate change in Australia is significant.

However, there are many other politicians who have not changed their opinions as Gray has done. In 2010 around 40% of Liberal/National politicians held the view the world could warm by 3-4 degrees Celsius before the situation became dangerous. The actual scientific consensus is a mere 2 degrees. Another 40% professed not to know what a safe global average temperature increase might be.

The likelihood of a Coalition government winning in 2013 makes the public statement of personal opinions on human induced climate change an issue of national and global importance.

The risks posed to the Australian and international communities by the uninformed opinions of our national leaders are significant. They cannot ethically choose to rely on their own uniformed opinion or ideology instead of science. Because of those risks, the role of responsible and well-informed media is crucial. The media has the civic and moral obligation to be a watchdog on society and its institutions.

Journalists have a duty to question politicians who oppose action based on uninformed opinions. The public has a right to be informed, and to question, a politician’s justification for putting current and future generations at risk.

Following Brown, we propose a series of questions that journalists (and the public) should be asking politicians on global warming, and how governments should respond to it.

Are you aware that over 97% of climate scientists globally, the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science and every major national science academy in the industrialised world (whose membership includes climate scientists) agree that the planet is warming, that the observed climate change is mostly human caused, and that if we continue with business as usual, harsh impacts and irreversible changes to the climate system will occur?

Do you accept that climate change is occurring? If not, what specific scientific sources and references do you rely on to justify rejecting the scientific consensus?

Do you accept that the human population is making a substantial contribution to climate change via our greenhouse gas emissions? If not, what specific scientific sources and references do you rely on to justify going against the scientific consensus?

Is it your position that Australia and the rest of the world need to urgently adopt policies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in line with scientific recommendations? If not, what specific scientific sources and references do you rely on to justify rejecting the scientific consensus?

Are you aware that the impacts of climate change in terms of increased risks to human health and climate change related deaths is already being measured by medical and public health professionals worldwide?

Do you accept that anyone who argues that we continue with business as usual and emit greenhouse gases beyond levels that the consensus of climate scientists says is dangerous for humanity (and the ecological system on which humans depend) should bear the burden of proof to show that this is safe?

Do you accept that, in light of the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and the long-standing consensus of climate scientists, politicians have a responsibility to immediately implement strategies to prevent dangerous climate change?

Given that climate scientists have been advising the urgent reduction of greenhouse gases for decades, do you accept that politicians who fail to implement policies to prevent dangerous climate change should be held responsible for harm that results from this inaction?

We might ask politicians a few of these ourselves. Have a go yourself – and let us know how you get on. We’d be pleased to write about it.

Karen Kiang is affiliated with Royal Children’s Hospital and the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute.

Brad Farrant, Fiona Armstrong, and Mark G Edwards do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

Like this:

Related

519 thoughts on “Let’s end the pseudo debate: ask your politician if they accept the scientific consensus on climate change”

I welcome clarity on this issue – I’m pissed off at Abbott’s ambivalence on the issue.

I think though that you’re underrating our ability to stop meaningful emissions reduction. When a country or region makes a meaningful effort to implement carbon pricing, we punish them with job losses – we shut a few factories, and make a loud noise about how its the first of many. In desperate economic times, this is a pretty effective strategy.

Only a concerted effort to create a global carbon price could stop this game – and that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Working with us to keep energy cheap, but focussing on finding ways to reduce the cost and increase the acceptance of nuclear power, is the only carbon reduction plan we will accept.

Only a concerted effort to create a global carbon price could stop this game – and that is not going to happen anytime soon. Working with us to keep energy cheap, but focusing on finding ways to reduce the cost and increase the acceptance of nuclear power, is the only carbon reduction plan we will accept.

I’ve already told you why a concerted global effort isn’t necessary, but you just ignored the fact that British Columbia is part of Canada.

I’ve already told you why a carbon fee and dividend plan wouldn’t increase the price of energy for the poor, but you simply blackmailed humanity:

You can’t ignore us – because we can and will stop you from implementing solutions you favour, unless our conditions are satisfied.

We don’t believe there is a problem – so it is you who has to come to us. I don’t like coal, but I don’t fear it the way you do.

See it as blackmail, with the future viability of the ecosystem at stake, if you will – but work with us, or watch our deadlock destroy your world.

Your choice.

And you’re still gloating about your ability to stop meaningful emissions reductions. Unbelievable.

It’s simply not possible to work with people who have the memory of a goldfish or a serious lack of integrity. Also, if scientists work with people who baselessly accuse scientists of fraud and incompetence, that merely legitimizes their flood of civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

Nothing you have tried has worked, or is likely to work. And you refuse to even consider a plan which has a chance of success, because you don’t like us.

As I explained, this isn’t about liking you. Again, I refuse to legitimize your civilization-paralyzing misinformation. British Columbia’s carbon fee and dividend plan has reduced emissions even if global progress has been slow because, as you’ve said:

Who do you think is responsible for the weakness of those frameworks? Who undermines them at every opportunity, and ensures they are ineffectual? People like me of course – right wing “deniers”.

Reasoned discourse with someone who can’t remember anything for more than a few days is impossible. You’re wrong to assume (once again) that I’m not considering all methods for reducing emissions. For instance, I’ve long endorsed standardizing nuclear reactors and building dozens of them in an assembly line so each reactor doesn’t have to be regulated and designed according to different rules.

Once again, you’ve mistaken my lack of interest in legitimizing internet trolls who are still baselessly accusing scientists of fraud with a lack of interest in removing red tape from nuclear power if that can be done safely.

I’m just not interested in discussing that topic with anyone but a nuclear engineer. Are you a nuclear engineer, in addition to someone who thinks he understands climate science better than climate scientists do?

.”..CO2 emissions rise and rise. And you have no idea how to stop this or even slow it down…”

Utter crap. How to stop and/or slow it down is well-known. And local gains are being made,which demonstrates that the problem is tractable and the solutions scalable.

“…other than some distant goal for vindication for your position”

What does this confused blurt even mean? The goal is not for vindicatory purposes anyway. That targets are in the distance indicates that the job is large and ongoing,as if it could be any other way considering the scale of the problem and solutions.

… Last time the Eugenics catastrophists, confident in their scientific consensus that genetic pollution would return us to the stone age, killed 7 million Jews to improve the race. Now poor people are dying because only rich people can afford the self inflicted expense of trying to appease the Carbon God. … How many poor Africans and Asians will die because of the great global warming swindle, before their pseudo scientific bluff is finally called? … [Eric Worrall, 2008-02-05]

Its not my fault if you guys are pushing for the implementation of harmful policies on the basis of pseudoscientific predictions of imminent catastrophe – just like the NAZIs did. [Eric Worrall, 2012-12-29]

… As for my children, they’ll be laughing at the stupidity of their ancestors, wondering how we could ever fall for alarmist nonsense, gasping at murderous biofuel policies, talking about the need for reparations to compensate formerly poor people for the mistreatment of their ancestors – just as we marvel at the incomprehensible stupidity of people who mistreated the Jews in the early 20th century. … [Eric Worrall, 2013-03-21]

… You guys have just recreated the feudal system, with miserable serfs (us) paying rich landowners an involuntary tithe through our energy bills. I hope you like it. … But I don’t have a choice about paying a renewable tithe to rich landowners. Like a medieval peasant, I have to pay, whether I want to or not. My only option to escape the tithe is to become one of the exploiters – if I owned a house, with a decent size roof, I could charge my own tithe, offsetting or even eliminating the tithe I would otherwise have to pay.[Eric Worrall, 2013-04-26]

Now that you know that a carbon fee and dividend plan doesn’t increase energy prices for the poor, will you please not accuse me and my colleagues of killing poor people?

Now that you know that a carbon fee and dividend plan doesn’t increase energy prices for the poor, will you please not accuse me and my colleagues of killing poor people?

But you are still making life tougher for poor people – killing the people at the very bottom of the heap. If rich people have to pay more, they pass the costs onto consumers in a most unprogressive fashion.

So DS and the scientific community is provoking the rich into killing the poor,eh,Eric? Shameful! When will it stop?! Those unfortunate suggestible super-rich victims!

When you guys drop your support for renewables – when you stop making it easy for the slime to demand tithes from the poor.

Didn’t the biofuel catastrophe teach you anything? Even though you mostly now claim you repudiate biofuels, many of you supported them once, only rejecting them once the damage became undeniable – and now the biofuel policy lumbers on, killing poor people.

Renewables do similar damage – but you haven’t yet had your noses rubbed in it to the same degree.

Gee,Eric,keeping up the nonsense much? The biofuel boondoggle in the US was Bush and the farm lobby turning the trick. In Australia,it was Howard rewarding his donor mate at Manildra by shoving tariffs on Brazilian product.

Land use decisions in Indonesia and Malaysia are out of my hands,I’m afraid, not being a member of the elite. I try my best to keep palm oil and rainforest timber out of my life.

And I’ve argued that electricity costs have risen because of privatisation… and oddly enough we have a report out today on the same,pointing out that Aussie electricity costs have risen at three times the rate of inflation since privatisation. Privatisation largely fails to deliver its promises of competition mediated value for consumers…time you woke up to the fact that the guys recommending it had a smidgeon of self-interest going.

Blame the management and the shareholders,bud.

Entrenched boom/bust cycles. Record indebtedness in the farming sector. Housing availability crisis for the sick,the poor and low income earners. It’s working well, this liberal economics.

But you are still making life tougher for poor people – killing the people at the very bottom of the heap. If rich people have to pay more, they pass the costs onto consumers in a most unprogressive fashion. So I would argue – you are still killing poor people.

I’ve discussed analyses from the Congressional Budget Office showing that the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in their electrical bills, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of approximately $245.

The rich probably wouldn’t even notice a price on carbon pollution. But even if they do, they could invest in LED bulbs to save money, insulate their mansions better, install solar thermal and PV panels, etc. Instead of buying toys like Ferraris, they could buy Tesla Roadsters.

All these responses would create jobs for poor people and help drive down prices, the same way rich people buying car phones in the 1980s made cell phones in Africa commonplace today.

Suggesting that poor people will die if the rich have to spend an extra ~1% of their income seems absurdly cynical, even alarmist.

But all this is completely irrelevant, as usual. I agree with Mike that it’s time to end this pseudo-debate and challenge our leaders to lead. I volunteer for the Citizens Climate Lobby which shares that goal. We’re visiting every member of Congress, thanking them for whatever positive contribution they’ve made, summarizing the science and then asking them to fight harder for a brighter future.

Our mission is different in America because our leaders haven’t shown the Australian courage to stop the fossil fuel industry from treating our atmosphere like a free sewer. Speaking of which… does anyone (other than Eric) have advice for a dumb scientist who’s thinking about moving to Australia?

Thats a bit harsh – just because I disagree with you, doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have you as a neighbour.

More assumptions. Just like I wasn’t saying that I didn’t like you, I wasn’t saying you wouldn’t have me as a neighbor. I just meant that your advice about immigrating is probably as reliable as your advice about physics. Please stop accusing me and my colleagues of killing poor people, and please stop derailing the conversation again and again.

DS,re moving to Australia: how do feel about moving to Canada? Similar scale economies with dependence on mining and agriculture,conservative governments concerned with image management, and the prospect of further muzzling of scientists…

Plenty of solid science done here,good reps and international connectedness,but challenging budgetary situations for ecology in a time of dynamic ecosystem transformation.

British Columbia also stopped the fossil fuel industry from treating our atmosphere as a free sewer. If the U.S. Congress betrays future generations by continuing to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, the choice between B.C. and Australia won’t be easy. Any country that supports science will be attractive to scientists.

More assumptions. Just like I wasn’t saying that I didn’t like you, I wasn’t saying you wouldn’t have me as a neighbor. I just meant that your advice about immigrating is probably as reliable as your advice about physics. Please stop accusing me and my colleagues of killing poor people, and please stop derailing the conversation again and again.

Fair point – we’ve got enough incompetent parasites sponging off the government research budget, creating false alarmism to pump up their research grants. Though I’m sure you’d be different.

Incidentally, did you notice we’re apparently going to be rid of Lewandowsky? Latest news is he’s buggering off to Britain.

Well,I guess that the answer to you request ,DS. Eric has no intention of desisting from smearing scientists…it is after all what he’s here for.

Eric,instead of dumping an accusation dressed as a rhetorical question,why don’t you provide some evidence for your contention. Do you have any evidence Flannery was instrumental in suggesting or steering the de-sal decisions? The Sydney project was born in 2005, authorised by then-Minister for Planning Frank Sartor. Flannery had no advisory position with the state government on the issue. Flannery is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists,and was part of a 2003 blueprint on water use that advised water recycling and stormwater harvesting as additional water supply sources for cities…de-sal was not mentioned. He gave qualified answers-subsequently much decontextualised- on the state of city water supplies in interviews between 2005 and 2008,that seems to be the sum total of his involvement.

If you want to point fingers, find out about the advisory processes. Don’t recycle the infantile fact-free bullying methods of News Ltd thugs.

While you’re researching, were state community services budgets cut back by the amount invested by governments in de-sal?

Nick, presenting Eric with facts is pointless. He is already on the record here as stating he’s not interested in facts that disagree with his beliefs. So, since he believes Flannery is responsible for desal plants despite no evidence for it, and some evidence against that, then that is what he is going to believe.

FFS,Eric,grow up… you,and the cretins at NewsLtd, accuse Flannery of being directly and indirectly responsible for de-sal decisions on the strength that he has talked about [relayed the news of] government moves to set them up.

Now you point at the CSIRO…eschewing the infantile personal attack line, thinking that it is more legitimate to accuse what you’d like us to see as a monolithic and corrupt bloc…FFS,grow up. Flannery is not an employee of or advisor to the CSIRO.

State government departments of planning and water authorities,with internal expertise,and external advice direct the processes. CSIRO modelling is involved,but it is not a dictat. The realities of projected population growth and demand modelling are dominant.

Flannery is a messenger,sticks his neck out on behalf of others,so you whingers can go punch and judy on him in absence of having a clue. The CSIRO is another pinnata that you can brandish your pitchforks at. What next?

Yet again Eric comes here and hijacks the discussion away from the original topic of the post which is about asking politicians about their acceptance or rejection of the science.

I followed on from my look at the house of reps and the senate by examining the disconnect between the National party literature and the words of their parliamentarians. Farmers, those the Nats claim to represent, would do well to question their elected representatives about mitigation and adaptation policies that are necessary now (think wine industry) and in the very near future. http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/the-national-partys-disconnect/

I’d say that disconnect is a little more widespread than a handful of politicians.

In the old days, if you asked people if they believed in God, most of them would have said yes – even though the rather sinful lives many of them lead indicated they didn’t take the idea of eternal hellfire all that seriously.

I think a similar disconnect is happening today – if you ask people if they believe in protecting the environment, in reducing CO2 emissions, many of them will say yes – but they drive to work, rather than taking the bus or cycling, buy their food from supermarkets with lots of excess packaging (which they also ahem drive to when shopping), and travel by air to holiday destinations.

Lip service and hypocrisy are the order of the day, with a few true believers like yourself wandering about looking lost, wondering why politicians aren’t taking more action on issues they claim they support.

The difference between faith and insanity is that faith is the ability to hold firmly to a conclusion that is incompatible with the evidence, whereas insanity is the ability to hold firmly to a conclusion that is incompatible with the evidence.
– William R Harwood, Dictionary of Contemporary Mythology

You keep repeating flatlining surface temperatures as if it means something when you know it is not statistically significant. Yet you ignore all the other incontrovertible evidence that the planet is warming – rising ocean temperatures, retreating glaciers, the disappearing Arctic ice, the movement of flora and fauna towards the poles etc etc etc.
Are you insane or blinded by your faith?

Eric,with another little visceral upchuck, slips back to rejecting the evidence of warming…undermining all the ‘progress’ he has made at getting a clue. He’s only here to smear scientists anyway,so don’t get your hopes up on any consistency on evidence.

Yep…….and I also accept there is a tooth fairy & a boogieman under my bed. I also believe that man landed on the moon (not once, but 6 times – Apollo 13 didn’t get there)

I also accept that there has been NO glowbull warming for +10 years, as does ‘Jimmy’ Hansen, the UK Met Office, the IPCC, many others and last but not least, the observational data – including ARGO (tip – it’s not hiding there either – try looking in the Bermuda Triangle – that’s where everything goes when you can’t find it. Oops, that’s also a conspiracy theory…sorry).

Well,sweetie,don’t be an idiot then… sea level rise is observed at most of the world’s tidal measurement stations,and even more of the long term ones…so,even without looking for it,there it is.

Then when you account for isostatic rebound,geostatic changes, station changes and ocean circulation changes…. SLR is still robustly observed at a global scale.

Then when you add in the satellite observations which coincide very closely with surface observations,there it is again.

Then add ocean heat measurements, observations of changes in the crysosphere,mass balance changes,there it is explained. That’s where the thermosteric expansion and net shift of water from land to ocean that gives SLR is.

Then you account for the FFs extracted and burnt over the last 150 years,given the observed radiative properties of GHGs and the observed and independently verified rise in GAT, the observed insignificance of TSI changes over the last forty years….this systematic accounting of observations gives us an anthropogenic cause as the only explanation for most of the 150 years of SLR.

Instead of reading from the IPCC, SkS, RC, here and other places, how about reading historical journals about past climate and climate fluctuations. There are 100’s of thousands out there……if you can be bothered to look.

You can believe in your doom and gloom un-proven hypothesis if you wish, I on the other hand believe in the earth’s past and history written in journals and with evidence produced by non-hockey stick, adjusted, manipulated so-called climate science(TM).

Tell me Nick, Sweetie, what caused the almost identical warming of the planet between ~1910 and ~1940?

Good Grief! Where did these two other idiot trolls come from? I thought we only had to deal with Eric. Having to deal with one scientifically illiterate dolt is bad enough without having to go back to square one with another two….

For your information Snafu, Nick has very succinctly explained the facts of sea level rise and how it points to the use of fossil fuels, with nary a model in sight. Just pure facts, if you had the wit to understand them.

“Then you account for the FFs extracted and burnt over the last 150 years,given the observed radiative properties of GHGs and the observed and independently verified rise in GAT, the observed insignificance of TSI changes over the last forty years….this systematic accounting of observations gives us an anthropogenic cause as the only explanation for most of the 150 years of SLR”

I think my comment “Nick has very succinctly explained the facts of sea level rise and how it points to the use of fossil fuels”, summarized the above quite nicely. I did not claim proof that SLR is caused by use of FF’s, just that they are the likely culprit.

If only you could be that pedantic when you examine some of Watts’ fraudulent graphical manipulations.

Sweetie, you have an ignorant person’s view of proof, the one that always gets trotted out in these fruitless exchanges. We have powerful complex evidence,but lacking another test planet,no ol’ fashioned lab proof. . So you’ve come around to trot out your little contempts for stuff you don’t understand? Ho hum

Warming in the shift out of the LIA has been attributed to a combination of natural variability,rising GHGs and solar factors. You can,and scientists do,attempt careful attribution studies of past warming and coolings. What ever they find does not make the proportional attribution studies of post 1960s warming invalid,in fact quite the opposite: the science has always reasoned that GAT is a product of many factors.

You talk as though you have no idea of scientific history in any systematic way,and certainly do not know what informs climate science. Past climate and climate fluctuations is central to the field…how could you not be aware of that by now?

So,I suggest you try not to keep being an idiot. That’s about your level so far.

You need help,don’t you Snafu…firstly,the ‘IPCC report=bible’ schtick is tiresome and unoriginal.Think for yourself.

Secondly,regardless of ‘level of understanding’ of each identified forcing agent, all forcing agents are not equal–not understanding a process or part of a process occurring a part of an atmospheric layer in great detail does not mean that we do not have a very good idea of where the effect is operating and how much ‘stuff’ is there to do it,—and we have moved ahead on knowledge some of them since 2007.

For example,attribution studies on GCR cloud links and recent CERN results raises our knowledge of their forcing potential to a level where they can be dismissed as of any significance to current climate change.

Likewise there has been an explosion of research on black carbon since 2007….much driven by the findings of meta-analyses like the IPCCs in highlighting research areas. I’d be surprised to see BC LOU unchanged in AR5.

‘Tropospheric water vapor from irrigation’ is a sub-category of tropospheric water vapor; identifying irrigations contribution is important to define local effects,and what might be realistically achieved in forcing change by reducing losses from agriculture. But it’s known that water use in irrigation represents a tiny value compared with natural sources of water vapor.

So, what you’re saying, is that we should rely on negative forcings for which scientists have a low level of understanding to counteract the positive GHG forcings for which scientists have a high level of understanding.

You link to what turns out to be a sequence of five plots. The last three show the OHC anomaly relative to the 2004 – 2012 mean at 2000 dbar, 1500 dbar and 700 dbar. All three show substantial increase in OHC in accordance with what we would expect. See a linear representation of dOHC 0 – 2000m and 0 – 700m here.

All plots, including your own, directly contradict your statement:

The heats gone deep into the oceans where no one can find it….including ARGO.

You are obviously unable to understand the material you are referencing. You have, I suspect, been tricked by a liar. Rather than demonstrate your dupe status here, why not go back and *confront* whoever lied to you and challenge them over their dishonesty? That’s what I would do.

Although the total pressure at a point in the ocean would be due both to the weight of the seawater above it and the atmospheric pressure, unless otherwise specified, the pressure at a point in the ocean is taken to be just that due to the seawater, not the seawater plus atmosphere. Therefore the sea pressure at the surface is 0 dbar. The pressure in dbar and the depth in meters are approximately equal, so the pressure in the ocean at 1 m depth is approximately 1 dbar, and that at 1000 m approximately 1000 dbar etc.

Also this on the properties of seawater:

The pressure at a given depth depends on the mass of water lying above that depth. (Hydrostatic equation given in class.) If the pressure change is 100 decibars (100 dbar), gravity g = 9.8 m/sec^2, and density is 1025 kg/m^3, then the depth change is 99.55 meter.

The Argo plots you linked are for ARGO depth profiles at 2000dbar, 1500 dbar and 700 dbar. According to you, these would correspond to depths of 20,000 metres, 15,000 metres and 7000 metres. The basement for ARGO is 2000m.

As stated:

1 dbar (decibar) = ~ 1 MSW (metre sea water).

“Deci” = TENTH of a bar. Not TEN bar. Pillock.

You have made a terminal prat out of yourself twice in a row. Now go away.

The point missed by contrarian buffoons is that it is a misdirection to invoke the earlier warming when it is evident that the well-quantified increase in GHG forcing is sufficient to account for the increase in OHC over the last several decade.

Although they always forget that the early C20th warming is a demonstration that the climate system is *sensitive* to relatively small changes in forcing and will therefore be sensitive to increased GHG forcing unless the laws of physics changed after ~ 1960.

The contrarians don’t seem to have thought this through at all carefully.

“It’s obviously escaped your attention that global temps [cough] have only increased by 0.8C since 1850.”

It’s obviously escaped your attention that 80% of summer Arctic ice by volume has already melted due to that 0.8 temp increase. Are you going to claim that is insignificant and not potentially dangerous?

About 0.5C in transient response to the abrupt increase in GHG forcing from ~1960 onward. Meanwhile, OHC rose strongly as >90% of the energy accumulating in the climate system did so in the ocean (Levitus et al. 2012).

Look at the evolution of forcings vs GAT comparison I linked for Chris O’Neill. Again, you are floundering.

“Although they always forget that the early C20th warming is a demonstration that the climate system is *sensitive* to relatively small changes in forcing and will therefore be sensitive to increased GHG forcing”

Yes, that’s my point. The GHG forcing to 1940 was quite sufficient to produce the warming to then. If we’re throwing up other crap besides GHGs a lot faster since then, then so what?

relevance? Obviously your nephew won’t be spying on you…or will he? He’s paid by the same government that pays all those climate scientists to lie about global warming so that a one world govenment controlled by Jewish bankers can implement carbon pricing and return us to the stone ages. Isn’t that how your nutty conspiracy theory goes?

Regardless of the global warming/climate change debate, this would have to be one of the most insulting comments I have ever come across. Have you ever had a son/daughter/nephew/niece, whatever, go to Afghanistan or to be called to duty? This is my 2nd nephew that has gone there (one in the Navy, one in the Army). Regardless of your so-called Stephan Lewandowsky conspiracy theories, this is the real world….and I and my brother (and families) are living it.

I demand an apology, from you, to all our armed servicemen and women who have served this country gallantry to make it what it is today.

In case you are too thick to get the point, anyone can make an untrue claim, as you did, when you repeatedly claimed that ARGO had not detected the accumulation of energy in the ocean.

Your false claim about ARGO was easy to debunk but your claim about your nephew is *impossible* to debunk, so carries absolutely no weight whatsoever. You cannot use this kind of unverifiable claim as the basis for a shrieking display of (probably fake) victimhood.

The Argo plots you linked are for ARGO depth profiles at 2000dbar, 1500 dbar and 700 dbar. According to you, these would correspond to depths of 20,000 metres, 15,000 metres and 7000 metres. The basement for ARGO is 2000m.

As stated:

1 dbar (decibar) = ~ 1 MSW (metre sea water).

“Deci” = TENTH of a bar. Not TEN bar. Pillock.

You have made a terminal prat out of yourself twice in a row. Now go away.

SNAFU ,you are not recognising the very basic fact that global sea level rise,observed at tide gauges and by satellite, is ongoing,which demonstrates that the ocean is net warming…because of observed SLR,and the principle of thermic expansion, one does not need thermometry to confirm warming. SLR has a meltwater component,but most is thermosteric.

Of course, sea levels have been rising since the start of the Holocene and in recent times has averaged something roughly around 1-2mm/yr. And since we’ve been able to make and take accurate measurements in the mid 19th century, the rate of SL rise has remained reasonable constant. Still, given that atmospheric temps aren’t playing ball, let’s all pretend that the current rate of SL rise is special and justifies reducing the amount of plant food in the atmosphere.

Yes Nick,SL increased in the early Holocene, later declined and then stabilised and/or rose slowly and in the last 1% of that time-frame have been rising slowly. How does that contradict anything I’ve previously said? What is it with you characters. Anyone who doesn’t whole-heartedly agree with you is suddenly, in your eyes, completely uninformed. Has it never occurred to you that someone can see the same data and see different emphasis or interpretations? In the same way as it never occurs to you that your faith can be (or at least should be) falsifiable, it never occurs to you that people can be as informed as you but have a different opinion. Its more than a little pathetic, not to mention juvenile.

Just one other point on the recent rise. Although we can’t be too dogmatic about the minutia of rises from 1830 or so since, before satellites, measuring sea levels was rather fraught, it seems clear that they have been rising since the end of the LIA. Linking the recent rise to AGW seems rather heroic given that it pre-dates the increases in CO2 or at least the large rises in CO2. Whatismore, given our rather fragmented data, we are in no position to know whether small rises such as those of the last century and a half haven’t occurred many times in the past few thousand years. Simply asserting that the rise is due to AGW is more about faith than evidence.

CO2 in the atmosphere is not a limiting factor for plant growth,and nor was it limiting at pre-industrial levels. CO2 levels in deserts are very similar to those in rainforests…you get my drift?

Yes I get your drift. You don’t like me pointing out that the thing you consider to be the scariest thing on the planet actually has some benefits. Not unusual, most warmists don’t like to think in terms of the small amount of warming being beneficial or that extra CO2 might be good for the biosphere.

This is the part where you cite any number of greenhouse studies that show increased plant growth under increased CO2 and ignore the fact that those of us who are scientifically literate understand that results from controlled greenhouse studies cannot be extrapolated to the real world where water, nitrogen, temperature and any number of other limiting factors are at play. Of course a little bit of research into long term FACE studies will reveal detrimental impacts to 5 out of the 6 major global food crops under increased CO2. But one also must wonder about the effects of increased CO2 on natural ecosystems where generalist species will most likely out-compete specialist species…but of course you thought of all that didn’t you…being the non-dill that you are?

You stated just above that “SLs have been rising since the start of the Holocene”

Now I point out that they have fallen from a mid-Holocene high stand before stabilising and rising, you’ve changed your tune! Do you read what you write?

We actually have a lot of data on past sea level fluctuations. Please read some before mouthing off. Given that the oceans are unequivocally net warming over the past century,then the only thing they are physically bound to do is net rise. It’s a matter of observation repeatedly made over the past centuries..it is not open to interpretation or opinion. And there is no ambiguity about warming either,as thermometry is not needed : the changes in the cryosphere illustrate it.
A small amount of warming is not a problem,but that is not what is projected. As if you didn’t know…

Asserting the rise is due to AGW is physically consistent with the evidence,not a matter of faith. Predictable stuff from you,Mark,I’m afraid. Eric has the same tape-loop on 24/7. “AGW = faith /religion/church of global warming/etc” Tiresome.

The ‘beneficial’ effect on plants of extra CO2 does not invariably mean that they will grow more because CO2 is not the limiting factor in plant growth… point out that CO2 is plant food all you like,it’s a slogan without context. I’ve never argued that extra CO2 has no benefits–I’m a retired horticulturist BTW–just that those who do will not consider the whole picture. N,P and K,and water and growing season are paramount,there is no shortage of CO2, and plants are pretty well accustomed to the 150 to 300ppm they have experienced for the last few million years.

There is plenty of work that suggests downsides to extra CO2. For instance,given that most places now experience the scourge and cost of feral plants, splashing a bit more CO2 about will favor many plants that are already costing us hundreds of millions of dollars in control programs annually. Extra growth in crop plants from CO2 will not axiomatically mean more nutritional value. Faster growth in grasses and shrubs can increase fire danger,or lead to more extensive savanna fire.

“it seems clear that they have been rising since the end of the LIA. Linking the recent rise to AGW seems rather heroic given that it pre-dates the increases in CO2 or at least the large rises in CO2.”

The LIA didn’t end until the early C20. How does that predate significant rises in CO2?

“in recent times has averaged something roughly around 1-2mm/yr. And since we’ve been able to make and take accurate measurements in the mid 19th century, the rate of SL rise has remained reasonable constant.”

Nick, again what I said was correct although highly summarised. Draw a trend line for SL from 11000 BP and you get a rise. I wasn’t at that time making comments about the minutia of SL changes.

Do you really think that we have sufficient data to be sure there haven’t been periods in the past that have seen rising sea levels within a general stable or downward trend? As with temps, our data for the past isn’t good enough to give a resolution of less than 2 or 3 centuries, what with changing currents, continental rebound, and all the other confounding factors that have made SL measurement so problematic.

As to CO2 fertilisation, I know that there is science (mainly models – which of course we all trust implicitly!) that shows that it might reduce yields. Then again there is science (including models) that suggests yields might increase. and that, at higher CO2 levels, plants use water more efficiently. You might want to believe that increased CO2 levels is always bad, never good, but it just ain’t so.

Mark,what you said was wrong in fact. And the minutiae of SL movement is of great importance to us,given the Holocene high stand was 1 to 2 m higher than 20th Century levels. Numerous shoreline recons confirm these figures,then temperature recons like Marcott give us an idea that we are headed back to the mid Holocene,and can thus expect SL to head back there as well.

And you keep misrepresenting what I say for some black /white framing…

So a trend line from 11000bp to the present isn’t positive? Well if you say so – we must be looking at different data.

then temperature recons like Marcott give us an idea that we are headed back to the mid Holocene,and can thus expect SL to head back there as well.

Marcott was about past data and can’t be used for predictive purposes. The only thing Marcott teaches us is that, if you’re going to produce a hockey stick, get McIntyre to review it before publication. Otherwise you’ll end up looking like a complete prat.

Regionally, the picture is complex because of the redistribution of mass between the cryosphere and the ocean:

By the mid-Holocene period, 6000-5000 years ago, glacial melting had essentially ceased, while ongoing adjustments of Earth’s lithosphere due to removal of the ice sheets gradually decreased over time. Thus, sea level continued to drop in formerly glaciated regions and rise in areas peripheral to the former ice sheets. At many low-latitude ocean islands and coastal sites distant from the effects of glaciation, sea level stood several meters higher than present during the mid-Holocene and has been falling ever since. This phenomenon is due to lithospheric responses to changes in ice and water loading. Water is “siphoned” away from the central equatorial ocean basins into depressed areas peripheral to long-gone ice sheets. Loading by meltwater that has been added to the oceans also depresses far-field continental shelves, tilting the shoreline upward and thus lowering local sea level. Over the past few thousand years, the rate of sea level rise remained fairly low, probably not exceeding a few tenths of a millimeter per year.

And:

Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world’s oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level.

Mark, it is not possible to discuss climate change if we cannot agree on what the literature says about it. If you are going to reject certain things as significant,and then demonstrate you have a poor knowledge of background material,it will be obvious to better informed people. Even without having an opinion on the consequences of further warming,we need to be on the same page with representations of observations and consensus views of proxy material.

Reconstructions can be and are used for informed speculative and predictive purposes. We are looking at climate variations and the factors behind them. Marcott’s multiproxy work confirms pictures of the Holocene gained through study of glacial fluctuations through carbon dating of organic matter,and the many sea-level reconstructions.

Funny thing I thought I had read it. But you’d know such things better than I….you wouldn’t just make it up, would you?
I also thought I’d read all of McIntyre’s critiques of the paper, as well as Pieser’s call for the paper to be withdrawn, RC’s attempt to defend the paper, Marcotte’s FAQ and his rapid retreat in the face of irrefutable evidence that he was, to put the best possible light on it, gilding the lily.

Tell me BBD, does it usually work for you when you start abusing people as stupid or do you just revert to such childishness when you have no way to refute what they say?

Now I know why this site uses the word “idiot” so often….its haunted by the likes of BBD. Now he tells me that I couldn’t possible have read Marcott because I’d reached a different conclusion to him. Its the standard arrogance of the child who doesn’t understand that’s its possible for two people to see the same data and reach different conclusions. The arrogant assume that anyone who doesn’t think (and in BBD’s case I use that term advisedly!) exactly like them is, to use his favourite term, stupid. Hopefully one day soon BBD will grow up.

As to Marcott, when the paper was released he was quoted as saying…

What we found is that temperatures increased in the last 100 years as much as they had cooled in the last 6,000 or 7,000,” he said. “In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we’ve seen in the whole Holocene,

After he’d been put through the wringer by McIntyre and the rest of the sceptic blogosphere he was forced to issue an FAQ and to retreat as fast as he could manage. At that time he was quoted as saying…

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

For those who struggle to follow such things (yes we’re talking about you BBD) Marcott went from saying that one of the most important findings of the paper was the 20th century uptick to saying that their data was so poor you couldn’t draw any conclusions from the so-called uptick.

Nick,
As regards Marcott, let’s try to agree on what it means and what it said.

I have no problem with the majority of the graph that Marcott developed. His methodology might be a little dodgy but in the end the graph is not inconsistent with my own understanding of the Holocene’s temp record.

Frankly, since my own view is that the changes in temps, including those that have occurred in the past century, are largely natural, any reconstruction that finds that temps have been higher than now for over over 20% of the past 11000 yrs is welcome. Its up to the warmists to explain why these previous highs occurred naturally but not the current warming.

So Marcott is useful in regards to the past. It is also useful in regards to the general temp direction in the past millennium or two and may prove useful in regards to comparing reconstructed temps with theories as to the causes of natural temp increases and decreases.

You seem to want to read all sorts of portent into the recent rise in temps shown in Marcott, believing that this signals a new phase. But as I’ve shown above, even Marcott has now conceded that the recent rise (the so-called uptick) can’t be used to draw ANY conclusions. Thus, Marcott is not a predictive tool unless you want to use it to predict that the general direction of the last millennium (ie declining temps) will continue. I’m fine with such a conclusion but wouldn’t rely on Marcott to reach it.

Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

Read the words. Marcott et al. does not use the C20th portion of its reconstruction to arrive at its conclusions. This is how I know you haven’t read M13 and are bluffing and parroting.

From M13:

To compare our Standard5×5 reconstruction with modern climatology, we aligned the stack’s mean for the interval 510 to 1450 yr B.P. (where yr B.P. is years before 1950 CE) with the same interval’s mean of the global Climate Research Unit error-in-variables (CRU-EIV) composite temperature record, which is, in turn, referenced to the 1961–1990 CE instrumental mean.

There are three alignments. Read the words. Follow the process. Understand what is being said. The last 150 years of the paleoclimate reconstruction have no effect on the alignment with the modern instrumental record.

But it is the comparison with the paleoclimate reconstruction with the modern instrumental record which M13 derives the following conclusions:

Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

For those who struggle to follow such things (yes we’re talking about you BBD)

Except we aren’t. We are talking about you Mark.

To summarise, for the hard of thinking:

The fake sceptics created a strawman. They invented the claim that M13 used its non-robust uptick as the basis for a comparison with the rest of itself. But M13 did not do this.

Instead, M13 acknowledged that the uptick was not robust on the first page of the paper:

In addition to the previously mentioned averaging schemes, we also implemented the RegEM algorithm (11) to statistically infill data gaps in records not spanning the entire Holocene, which is particularly important over the past several centuries (Fig. 1G). Without filling data gaps, our Standard 5×5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6°C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5° × 5° area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust.

Then M13 compared the modern instrumental record with its paleoclimate reconstruction in a way that avoided using the last 150 years of its paleoclimate reconstruction *because* the authors knew that it was not robust.

This is how the fake sceptics manufacture fake controversy and mount dishonest attacks on climate scientists.

He then carries a quote from Marcott which somehow is supposed to be his proof that I hadn’t read Marcott et al 2013.

Hilariously however, I had already mentioned that same quote earlier in the thread.

In string theory it is postulated that there are an infinite number of parallel universes. In one of those parallel worlds, what BBD did makes logical sense. But on this world, not so much.

So far BBD has decided, without any evidence that I haven’t read MArcott, that my meaning for a particular phrase has to be subordinated to his meaning, and that, without even knowing it, I somehow think that CO2 doesn’t absorb IR.

Its an interesting debating method. Inform people that they haven’t done what they have done, tell them that they believe something completely different to what they do think, and then inform them that they are “stupid” for thinking what they don’t actually think. Bizarre isn’t nearly a strong enough term.

After Snafu made a prat of himself by revealing his lack of understanding of scientific units, we have Mark, who thinks he has proved that Marcotte et al is fundamentally flawed but all he has proved is his lack of basic English comprehension. Why is it that you all seem incapable of understanding that in the age of modern instrumentation, there is no need to rely upon the most recent proxies at all, and indeed, the conclusions of that paper do not depend on them? This is basic stuff guys, not rocket science. You just need to understand English.

Then there is Eric, who is incapable of reading a graph, and totally misunderstands the concept of error bars. He insists that when Watts cherry picks a start point on a temperature chart then draws a horizontal line to the bottom of an error bar, (when the data points are clearly rising), thus manufacturing a fake trendline; that is OK and acceptable, even when the intent and execution are clearly fraudulent. However, when Marcotte et al combine proxy data with instrument data, (despite having clearly labelled it), then that is misleading and fraudulent.

Guys do us all a favour. Go away and get a basic science education then come back and we may be able to have a reasonably informed discussion; because right now, you are just making fools of yourselves by demonstrating your scientific illiteracy and incompetence.

Hilariously however, I had already mentioned that same quote earlier in the thread.

You astonish me. I repeated the quote from the Marcott FAQ that you provided because it invalidates your entire argument. It demolishes the strawman. I find your apparent inability to understand your own reference absolutely jaw-dropping. Here, for the third time, is the vital sentence:

Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

Let me repeat the essence of that again once more, because I have a horrible feelin it might be necessary:

Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack […] is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

Get that yet?

Now, go back and read my previous two responses to you again (for the first time?). Read the words. Mouth them as you do so if it helps. But do not add another sentence to this discussion until you have understood what I wrote.

I know I’m repeating Debunker to a large extent here, but clearly this bears repetition. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious. FFS get your ducks in a row.

Ah, the old, “trace” meme – a favourite if the scientific-illierati. Mark will now demonstrate how cyanide cannot kill a person as only small amounts are needed. Every cubic metre of air contains roughly 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2.

The consensus claim has been floating around a long time. The 97% figure is particularly funny – it took a lot of effort to torture the raw response into producing a figure of 97% – the raw figure was around 80%, which wasn’t nearly compelling enough for the narrative the people conducting the survey wanted to promote.

I’ve been waiting for Eric to correct Anthony Watts on this one, seeing he seems to be set on ‘correcting’ everyone else. I guess Eric doesn’t want to let facts get in the way of Anthony’s fairy tale either. Especially when Anthony writes about another study that shows that people are influenced by scientific opinion. (Eric and other dismissives excepted.)

Look,dimwits, results of surveys of busy scientists can be tortured in many ways… meanwhile literature searches reveal no credible work that argues technically against AGW.,or that CS is zero,or that CO2 increase is not anthropogenic. There is no shortage of Salbyan bullshit,though,in low-impact or fake journals.

You also need to explain why climate science is backed by all the national and international scientific peak bodies,all the universities and most of the energy industry peak bodies as well…are they all desperately afraid of Mike Mann?

Of course you can ‘explain’ this with resort to a raft of baroque conspiracy theories…and AlGore!

So you don’t think that 80% loss of Arctic summer ice volume in 30 years is potentially dangerous? And, that is only after a 0.8 degree temperature increase. Leaving aside ocean acidification and sea level rise and all the other effects that have already been noted, what may a 2 degree overall rise, (which is on the cards at minimum) by the end of the century bring?

To say it’s not yet dangerous is not the point. If we keep on at the rate we are going, increasing levels of CO2 WILL have dangerous effects. Pinning your hopes on a low climate sensitivity for CO2 is not a realistic plan for the future. A realistic impact assessment would dictate using a value in between the most optimistic and most pessimistic projections. Uncertainty works both ways, so it is irresponsible to always take the most optimistic scenarios, which is what most “Skeptics” advocate.

Okay, let’s explore the potential consequences of your advocacy for laissez-faire BAU without emissions regulation. Let’s use three estimates of ECS/2xCO2 that are compatible with known paleoclimate behaviour. The estimates range from 2.5C to 3C. Pre-industrial CO2ppmv = 280

It isn’t a misnomer. The process is ongoing and there isn’t really another word. The only misnomer is when a statement like “the ocean is becoming more acidic” is used. ‘Acidification’ by definition is the process of making a substance move downwards on the pH scale regardless of its starting point. Alternately, ‘alkalinisation’ is the reverse process. The only other term that could be used instead of ‘acidification’ is ‘dealkalinisation’ and I’m not sure thats actually a word. Perhaps ‘debasification’. Are we debasing the oceans? In some ways, that actually sounds worse. Given the propensity of deniers to get upset by words rather than discuss science, perhaps we should start using that.

Only problem with this calculation is the warming predicted by IPCC climate sensitivity estimates isn’t actually happening. Since 1997 there has been a 30ppm rise in CO2, which at 3c / doubling should have produced:-

3 x ln(390/360) / ln(2) = 0.35c

Actual warming: Not even sure there has been any.

If you assume CO2 is a strong climate forcing, that means another forcing must be acting in opposition to the CO2 forcing, which implies that during periods of rapid warming, such as the post 1980s warming, that mystery forcing may have been acting in conjunction with CO2 forcing, creating a misleading impression of the strength of the CO2 forcing.

Or it may be that CO2 is simply not a very strong climate forcing.

Then, of course, there is the problem of ocean acidification (a misnomer, granted, but a vast, intractable problem caused by CO2 all the same).

Basic chemistry. Undeniable.

Except for most of the Earth’s history CO2 has been at far higher concentrations than today – only for the last 30 – 50 million years has CO2 been at current historically low levels.

Evolution of basic cell chemistry simply doesn’t move that quickly. The mechanisms used by coral and other shelled sea creatures, which are assumed to be most vulnerable to ocean acidification, is essentially unchanged from thriving periods when CO2 was far more prevalent. The limiting factor for shell growth might actually be availability of CO2 – given that plants respond strongly to increased CO2 up to around 1200ppm, which is much closer to the levels of CO2 their cell chemistry evolved to handle, there is no reason to assume shelled sea creatures won’t respond in a similar way.

Ocean acidification is pure junk science alarmism – a sign of desperation, now the warming thing is a laughing stock.

Since 1997 there has been a 30ppm rise in CO2, which at 3c / doubling should have produced:-

3 x ln(390/360) / ln(2) = 0.35c

Rubbish.

You do not know the difference between *transient* climate response and equilibrium sensitivity. Another basic error. Over the last few days you have demonstrated that you are not equipped to debate climate science at any level.

We’ve been over your inability to grasp the relative unimportance of surface air temperature vs OHC and you retreated into silly denialism, automatically conceding the point (I will be intellectually honest for you, since you are apparently incapable of doing it yourself).

Ocean acidification is pure junk science alarmism

Ocean acidification is basic chemistry. Only a fool would attempt to deny basic chemistry. You are clearly a fool.

The key factor you have ignored in your “analysis” of paleoclimate is the rapidity of that change.

There is no precendent, no analogue for what is happening now. Marine biota do not have time to evolve to such extreme, rapid change. As *all* marine biologists will be more than ready to tell you, if only you would listen instead of drowning out the scientific discourse with the blabbering of denial.

Dear God, Worrall, is there no end to your basic errors, your stupidity and your topic ignorance?

Then paleoclimate behaviour becomes inexplicable. Parsimonious reasoning leads to the conclusion that CO2 forcing is efficacious and approximately as estimated: somewhere in the range 2.5C – 3C per doubling.

Eric ‘”if there actually has been any warming”…we’ve pointed out,often, where most of has been observed. Seen it ? Yes/no? SLR? Remember SLR over the last 17 years of your “no warming”? Remember question asked of ‘Snafu’? What causes SLR?

I wrote to my local members (state and federal) in Riverina. Barry Maguire, State LNP, wrote back that he recognises that climate changes and has been for millions of years and that climate policy is not a state issue.

I wrote back saying that his reply parroted a common climate science denier meme and that state governments have important responsibilities in the area of climate change and its effects.

So far no response from the federal rep.

I used Questions 1-4 and 8 from the Conversation article. I think that this is a worthwhile exercise, particularly if we are prepared to follow-up first replies (which will more than likely be form letters) to try to establish a genuine conversation with our parliamentary representatives.

And another thing – just ignore EW. He adds nothing of any value to any thread. His logorrhoea just diverts potentially interesting threads for his own gratification.

In Victoria there is a Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Department of Primary Industries, Port Authorities Planning bodies and various other agencies that have responsibilities relating to and impacted by climate and its change. Seems odd that an MP takes the view that climate ‘policy’ isn’t a state issue.

>>Let’s stop talking about whether or not global warming has “paused” for 17 years <<

You can if you like.

Don't expect everyone else to, though. Even 'The Economist', by no means a stronghold of evil denialists – very much the opposite in fact, has finally noticed that the Earth's temperature has failed to perform as predicted by your much-vaunted "consensus", and has not done so for a period that casts considerable doubt on the veracity of the computer models.

In any case, the apparent hiatus is not your biggest credibility problem, that would be the stubborn reluctance of atmospheric water vapour to increase in tandem with atmospheric CO2 concentration. In fact, according to NASA satellite studies, it appears to be declining, especially the in the crucial stratospheric region. Here's one to whet your appetite.

Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming

Do you know the difference between the troposphere and the stratosphere? No? Obviously not.

Here’s another paper by Susan Solomon where she and Damon Matthews point out that while the warming we’re causing is irreversible for a very long time (at least 1000 years), we can still slow it down and even stop it, if we so choose:

Well, let’s see. If you want to see the connection between a paper on managing global warming, try this for size: as global temperatures rise (ie global warming), more water evaporates therefore total atmospheric water vapour increases. That’s just how precisely!

Yes, weazle, you cannot make credible claims about total atmospheric water content as you do —‘appears to be declining’— by reference to a paper on a short term trend in the stratosphere. Get some context.

Abstractitis strikes again. Don’t be so cheap catweazle and purchase either a subscription to the journal or the individual paper so that you can access the important caveats. That way you can make truly informed comments about papers rather than ignorantones basedon your interpretation of just the abstract. The devil is always in the detail.This is from the conclusion of the paper you have only read the abstract of…

“However, the relation between SSTs in the warm pool region and stratospheric water vapor changes character (from negative to positive short-term correlations) from 1980 to 2009, suggesting that other processes may also be important or that the correlation may be a transient feature linked to the specific pattern of SSTs at a given time rather than to the average warming of SSTs around the globe. It is therefore not clear whether the stratospheric water vapor changes represent a feedback to global average climate change or a source of decadal variability. Current global climate models suggest that the stratospheric water vapor feedback to global warming due to carbon dioxide increases is weak (1,34), but these models do not fully resolve the tropopause or the cold point, nor do they completely represent the QBO, deep convective transport and its linkages to SSTs, or the impact of aerosol heating on water input to the stratosphere”

If you need any help in understanding exactly what that means let me know. I’ll give you a hint…the abstract doesn’t mean what you think it does.

I’ll write to my local MP later this week and let you know what she says – if she replies. She’s the Shadow Minister for “lack of Innovation, Industry downsizing and denial of Science” so her response will be of particular interest.

Not at all – they are contributing to the democratic process, by keeping people informed of how badly the mining industry is being treated by the Gillard government, and their view on why people should care about it.

It does support my point though – unless you change tactics, we will always be able to thwart efforts to put a price on carbon.

Find a way to work with us, or continue your unbroken track record of failure.

but let’s pretend for a moment that you and Watts and every other scientifically illiterate moron actually do have a position important enough that real scientists and policy makers would have to work with you, one would question why anyone would want to, given your own admission that you aren’t interested in facts that challenge your beliefs. Such wilful ignorance shouldn’t be rewarded with any sort of recognition other than acknowledgement that you are childish beyond belief. Now, go and sit in the naughty corner until you grow up and act your age.

but let’s pretend for a moment that you and Watts and every other scientifically illiterate moron actually do have a position important enough that real scientists and policy makers would have to work with you, … Such wilful ignorance shouldn’t be rewarded

Its bizarre disconnects from logic like that which make me sometimes question whether you guys actually believe in dangerous climate change, or whether you yourselves doubt it, but simply see it as a convenient club with which to beat your idealogical opponents.

FFS – if the future of the world is in balance, WTF should you or anyone else give on moment’s consideration to whether our “wilful ignorance” is rewarded?

Surely a situation this serious means you do whatever it takes to avert the threat – even if it means the bad people escape the consequences of their evil.

Noone is coinsidering it. That’s why Watts is never invited to contribute to anything scientific. He’s an unpublished nobody with no scientific training. I was merely offering a hypothetical based purely on your own delusions of grandeur which you have displayed numerous times.

If you think I’m claiming that I can issue orders based on your offer of agreement which will galvanise the “denier” community, you need a remedial reading class.

What I’m suggesting is that I’ve got at least some insight into how my fellow travellers think, and why they are so upset about issues like carbon pricing, and how you might be able to achieve carbon reductions.

Naturally I expect to get something out of it – as a techno-optimist, I’d like to see an expansion of nuclear power, cleaner air, and a reduction of my electricity bill.

Snafu,the cost to taxpayers of privatising the electricity market,which was advocated by private interest and the IPA, and setting up the NEM in 1995 was sixteen billion dollars in sweeteners to the states. The public was excluded from consultation and polling showed they were opposed to the idea. Since privatisation,electricity prices have rocketed contrary to promises, and business expenditure on management and PR far exceed the cost of the carbon price.

The carbon price is currently low, and is likely to stay low, because business can always play the jobs card when the cost burden on their operations rises too high.

And its not an empty threat. Africa, thanks to Chinese investment, is attracting growing interest – the dictators are finally waking up that they can make more money from protection money than by stealing the trucks. Mining companies are becoming experts at cutting deals with the local fixers and warlords, and hiring mercenaries to “influence” local politics in case things turn sour.

If the cost of all these games is lower than the cost of investing in Australia, and if mining companies acquire the unfortunate perception that the regulatory environment in Australia is more unstable than the safety they can purchase elsewhere, then Australia won’t get any investment. Simples.

Find a way to work with us, or continue your unbroken track record of failure.

Still you do not see. You and your “fellow travellers” in denialism are digging the grave of your political descendants with your bare hands.

The people know that the Right = denialism = vested corporate interest, but right now they don’t care enough. But they will, when the impacts increase in severity and frequency, and then, in their fear and anger, they will bury you all forever at the ballots.

You need to snap out of your various destructive delusions before it is too late.

… The people know that the Right = denialism = vested corporate interest, but right now they don’t care enough. …

I love comments like this, because it reaffirms my suspicion that many of you are frustrated communists in green drag.

But none of your comment is pertinent to your point. You can waste your breath telling us to “snap out of it” until the cows come home, or you can work with us to find a way to reduce CO2 emissions which we would enthusiastically support.

Its not like this would be difficult.

We love nuclear power – most of us are techno-optimists.

We hate carbon pricing – we fight tooth and nail to dilute or abolish any carbon pricing efforts.

We’re about to hit 400ppm. So who is that you have to work with to get the low-carbon economy we need?

Here is big coal showing it’s only interested in maintaining and further entrenching its stranglehold over Australian energy policy. And having privatised a lot of energy infrastructure on coal’s behalf, governments have guaranteed the only way to go low carbon with nuclear baseload is to pay these clowns off….

I notice Campbell Newman says he wont sell off his states energy infrastructure…maybe the man has learned something from the mistakes of the past twenty years. Doesn’t think he wants to leave a legacy involving grabbing short-term cash only to have to buy back soon. Doesn’t want to be remembered as yet another patsy on energy policy,perhaps.

To repeat, privatising energy infrastructure,a natural monopoly, has been a mistake,especially given the need to respond at scale to climate change: the promises of cheaper power were lies anyway,the loss of planning control and manoeuveribility on national energy policy are serious,and the privateers will demand exit packages to compound costs to the community.

I saw the report on Campbell Newman backing away from some asset sales, though I haven’t seen any details of why he made the decision. Perhaps he is worried in the current economic climate he won’t get a good enough price – he might be calculating that if he waits until after the Federal Election, economic conditions might improve – that the extra interest he will accumulate on the Labour debt will be more than covered by the extra profit he will receive from asset sales post Gillard.

Coal powered energy generation is turning into stranded assets..let the public retain them. The penetration of renewables,as useless as they are for base load,into the spot NEM,is challenging returns for coalies.

Buyers paid too much for them in the past,which was one of the numerous reasons why promised benefits of privatisation failed to materialise. So indeed their value will be lower now in a more wary market. Buyers will demand a low price and try to screw guarantees out of the state as ever. A market directed approach will never address global environmental issues in a timely fashion.

You’re half right – buyers of coal assets are quite reasonably aggrieved that the government is changing the game rules in a way which is detrimental to the value of their assets.

In its way, its just as unfair as the government suddenly compulsorily acquiring your back yard to build a new road, without paying you fair compensation for the impact of this loss on the value of your house. Most big mining companies are part owned by pension funds, or other investment vehicles for ordinary savers, so its not just the ultra rich who are hit by this kind of expropriation.

However, the government making it easier to build cheap nuclear plants (or in the case of Australia, making it possible to build cheap nuclear plants) would be viewed differently – in this case it is enabling new commerce, not arbitrarily tearing up the rulebook. People accept the rules of markets and competition, providing they don’t think the rules are being tilted unfairly against them.

It’s a fraught issue. There was enough knowledge about ACO2,and potential downvaluation of coal connected assets for governments and business to be cautious about trading coal energy plants…in fact at the time I always assumed that the Victorian government,in possession of the scientific intelligence, was partly motivated by a desire to unload its power stations before the ‘heat’ became too strong,value of coal generation fell, and business too savvy…but the development and design of the NEM so favoring the purchasers and guaranteeing profligacy killed that suspicion.

Government distinguished by failure to lead,and a pushover for sectional business interests peddling ‘disinterested’ advice. Better public interest tests,real energy standards,and a better engaged media would have helped.

The pricing of carbon came with compensation…they were even going to buy out the brown coal power station. I think the buyers got good deals,the public did not get their promises…and the buyers and coal industry got to shape the privatising legislation. So you and I lose,and I think the big boys more than looked after themselves…but yes in principle changing direction has to involve transparency and fairness. 😉 Would have been easier to retain the power stations,genuinely reform management and commit to ongoing consultation on best practice and network design.

The very things that privatisation advocates identified as reasons to end government ownership are still present as the shortcomings of the privatised network.

Would have been easier to retain the power stations,genuinely reform management and commit to ongoing consultation on best practice and network design.

LOL – that pixie dust moment when a left winger suggests that anything is possible if management is reformed ;-).

If people obeyed the rules, and applied themselves to their state allotted tasks, Communism would be an efficient way to administer a country. Its not inconceivable that someone, somewhere, will one day find a brilliant socio-economic innovation which approaches that goal – I’ve played Civ CTP too, and yeah, sometimes I choose the Technocracy government type.

But it hasn’t happened yet.

So we’re stuck with the tools we have – and in most cases, a lazy, unionised top heavy civil service is not the most effective tool for the job.

The pixie dust is heaped upon you Eric…as the current privatised electricity industry is beset with bloated managerialism…one manager for every nine workers, by the latest analysis calculations. A manager’s paradise!

“Let’s stop talking about whether or not global warming has “paused” for 17 years”.

It’s just as likely to have warmed at 0.18 deg C/decade over those 17 years as to have not warmed at all. The warming trend and confidence interval for Hadcrut4 was 0.09±0.12 deg C/decade (2σ confidence interval) over those 17 years.

The denialists run a huge misinformation campaign only ever mentioning that the bottom end of that confidence interval dips below zero.

One thing they will never, ever mention is the top of that confidence interval, even though it is just as likely as the bottom.

Don’t be so coy DS – if we take Ben Santer’s advice, 17 years without warming is a long enough period to be considered significant. Just one year to go, even using Hadcrut 4 figures.

Not coy. Educated. Statistical significance requires time, as my analysis just showed. For months you’ve been falsely claiming that temperatures have been flatlining, which is nonsense because there’s been no statistically significant change in the rate of warming. As I’ve previously told you:

Why must every day be groundhog day? Eric, I’ve already explained that there’s been no statistically significant change in the rate of warming. I even showed you the results from my own statistical analysis.

This only took a few dozen lines of code in R. You claim your “main expertise is as a software developer” and continually claim to understand statistical significance better than the overwhelming majority of scientists, so why don’t you calculate this yourself like I did?

If not, consider using a web interface that calculates statistical significance, like this one from Skeptical Science. WoodForTrees is nice, but doesn’t even try to calculate significance.

If you explore the SkS trend calculator, you’d learn that there’s been no statistically significant change in the rate of warming. Or, impress us and write some actual code!

… you can face up to some of the nonsense your fellow travellers have produced, and admit some of it was wrong.

Lecturing scientists about the “nonsense” that the rest of humanity calls “mainstream science” isn’t the best route to credibility.

Not coy. Educated. Statistical significance requires time, as my analysis just showed. For months you’ve been falsely claiming that temperatures have been flatlining, which is nonsense because there’s been no statistically significant change in the rate of warming. As I’ve previously told you:

Ben Santer stated in 2003 that 17 years is the minimum period required to separate the climate signal from noise.

The last 17 years, the climate signal has been zero trend – a flatline.

Lecturing scientists about the “nonsense” that the rest of humanity calls “mainstream science” isn’t the best route to credibility.

People used to think catastrophist Eugenics was a science as well.

Amusingly, R Value was developed by Karl Pearson, from an idea originally proposed by Francis Galton, the father of the NAZI Eugenics movement. Karl Pearson was also a strong supporter of Eugenics. They used calculations of statistical significance to demonstrate the validity of their predictions of imminent Eugenic catastrophe.

Not coy. Educated. Statistical significance requires time, as my analysis just showed. For months you’ve been falsely claiming that temperatures have been flatlining, which is nonsense because there’s been no statistically significant change in the rate of warming. As I’ve previously told you

Ben Santer stated in 2003 that 17 years is the minimum period required to separate the climate signal from noise.

The last 17 years, the climate signal has been zero trend – a flatline.

Lecturing scientists about the “nonsense” that the rest of humanity calls “mainstream science” isn’t the best route to credibility.

People used to think catastrophist €ugenics was a science as well.

Amusingly, R Value was developed by Karl Pearson, from an idea originally proposed by Francis Galton, father of the 1930s €ugenics movement. Karl Pearson was also a strong supporter of €ugenics. They used calculations of statistical significance to demonstrate the validity of their predictions of imminent €ugenic catastrophe.

Not coy. Educated. Statistical significance requires time, as my analysis just showed. For months you’ve been falsely claiming that temperatures have been flatlining, which is nonsense because there’s been no statistically significant change in the rate of warming. As I’ve previously told you

Ben Santer stated in 2003 that 17 years is the minimum period required to separate the climate signal from noise.

The last 17 years, the climate signal has been zero trend – a flatline.

Lecturing scientists about the “nonsense” that the rest of humanity calls “mainstream science” isn’t the best route to credibility.

Amusingly, R Value was developed by Karl Pearson, from an idea originally proposed by Francis G@lton They used calculations of statistical significance to demonstrate the validity of their predictions of imminent €ugenic catastrophe.

Not coy. Educated. Statistical significance requires time, as my analysis just showed. For months you’ve been falsely claiming that temperatures have been flatlining, which is nonsense because there’s been no statistically significant change in the rate of warming. As I’ve previously told you:

Ben Santer stated in 2003 that 17 years is the minimum period required to separate the climate signal from noise.

The last 17 years, the climate signal has been zero trend – a flatline.

Lecturing scientists about the “nonsense” that the rest of humanity calls “mainstream science” isn’t the best route to credibility.

People used to think catastrophist Eugenics was a science as well.

Amusingly, R Value was developed by Karl Pearson, from an idea originally proposed by Francis Galton, the father of the NAZI Eugenics movement. Karl Pearson was also a strong supporter of Eugenics. They used calculations of statistical significance to demonstrate the validity of their predictions of imminent Eugenic catastrophe.

Not coy. Educated. Statistical significance requires time, as my analysis just showed. For months you’ve been falsely claiming that temperatures have been flatlining, which is nonsense because there’s been no statistically significant change in the rate of warming. As I’ve previously told you

Ben Santer stated in 2003 that 17 years is the minimum period required to separate the climate signal from noise.

The last 17 years, the climate signal has been zero trend – a flatline.

Lecturing scientists about the “nonsense” that the rest of humanity calls “mainstream science” isn’t the best route to credibility.

People used to think catastrophist Eugenics was a science as well.

Amusingly, R Value was developed by Karl Pearson, from an idea originally proposed by Francis Galton, the father of the NAZI Eugenics movement. Karl Pearson was also a strong supporter of Eugenics. They used calculations of statistical significance to demonstrate the validity of their predictions of imminent Eugenic catastrophe.

I’m not arguing that correlation and statistics is invalid because of its unfortunate associations – but if the father of statistics was so thoroughly deceived, then there must be some fairly subtle failure modes for this type of calculation.

There has been no statistically significant advance in your understanding of why your views are untenable,Eric…it has been explained to you time and again. You simply reject it and repeat your misunderstanding. Your choice.

If the father of Statistics, the person who originally invented “R Value”, was able to use meticulous calculations of “R Value” to demonstrate that Jews should be gassed, then that kindof blows out DS’s suggestion that “R Value” is a reliable indicator of the fitness of his theory, don’t you think?

No. R is the programming language used by professional statisticians. After incorrectly appealing to statistical significance for years, you’ve decided to smear statistics en masse after I showed that there’s been no statistically significant change in the warming rate.

You,sir,are a moron! At first “I’m not arguing that correlation and statistics are invalid because of unfortunate associations”…but,what the hell, you will. And you’ll invent on the associations. You may as well argue that the European intelligentsia of 1850-1920 was the father of the NAZIs…hell of course they were,the bastard children of the privileged elite and the nascent scientific class! They caused NAZIs!!

Don’t be in a hurry for “significantly” more surface warming – it does weird things to the weather. The heat is still piling up – it’s accumulating in the oceans. Cherry picking a massive temperature spike from El Nino is what deniers do. Keep your eye on the long term mulit-decadel trend.

One thing is for sure, there hasn’t been any cooling, every decade of the last four has been hotter than the one before and it’s something like 343 months since there was a month with temperatures below the 20th Century average..

No. R is the programming language used by professional statisticians. After incorrectly appealing to statistical significance for years, you’ve decided to smear statistics en masse after I showed that there’s been no statistically significant change in the warming rate.

My point demonstrates correlation is not enough to prove something. Many researchers, including the person who invented the science, came unstuck making this mistake.

I’ve supplied evidence to back my claims. I’m not saying you’re a bad person – but the damage your colleagues are doing through your sloppy scientific practice (e.g not sharing code, trying to deliberately frustrate efforts to reproduce research by outsiders, promoting the idea that correlation is proof of a scientific theory) may kill as many people as the NAZIs did.

There are 300 bodies in Rana Plaza,with more than 1000 unaccounted for…all sacrificed in the name of free movement of capital,best-price manufacturing,and arms length contracting. The business owned by a politician,the top three floors were not approved structure,and the workers ordered into a building that had been evacuated the day before because of audible and visible cracking. All for your singlets.

If Galton is the ‘father of NAZI eugenics’ and science is killing poor people, then Worrell is ‘an advocate of dangerous work practices and worker-killing deregulation’…by your logic. Actually,by simple deduction.

Oh for goodness sake Eric. Paranoid fantasies of data manipulation are strictly for nutters. You are behaving like a conspiracist loon. Get a grip.

Alteration made to GISTEMP is documented. Nothing is hidden. The code and data are in the public domain. The claims by contrarians are simply nonsense and lies intended to smear Hansen. It’s risible and nasty in equal measure.

As for preferring HadCRUT to GISTEMP, there’s nothing much in it since ~1975:

For a man capable of putting several sentences into a coherent paragraph, you come out with comments of such outstanding stupidity that one wonders how you can stand up without your knuckles dragging on the ground.

How much heat do think it takes to melt a planetary ice cap? Where do you think that heat came from? Do yourself a favour and take a graduate course in basic science. Many Universities have internet courses. And while you are at it, take one in basic statistics as well. You might learn what “statistically significant” means.

If you won’t do it for yourself, do it for your daughter, because you owe it to her to work towards the best possible world for her future, so you need the best possible information as to the current state of the planet; and you ain’t going to get it from a man who spent 8 years at Uni and never managed to graduate.

Come to think of it, Snafu, Catspiss and Mark, you could all do with joining him on that course. Then come back to us and we can have an INFORMED discussion.

Yes – there is nothing in the literature is there? No demonstration of flawed methodology in GISTEMP or – as Eric and his fellow liars claim – “fiddling”. In other words, scientific misconduct, that most serious of accusations.

What Eric and his fellow travellers *always* forget is that there has only been one occasion when a temperature record was withdrawn, in its entirety because of methodological error.

This record was curated by “sceptics” – Spencer and Christy at UAH. The UAH TLT reconstruction appeared to show no warming, but Mears and Wentz at RSS demonstrated systemic error in 2005, and this much-touted “evidence” for lack of warming was publicly withdrawn.

As we know, once the “sceptics'” work was corrected, the UAH TLT reconstruction *did* show warming. Who knows how long the errors would have persisted, undetected were it not for the diligence of Mears and Wentz?

Yet do we ever hear about this unique failure of a temperature reconstruction – and one curated by *sceptics* at that? No, we do not.

Instead, we hear a great deal of mendacious clap-trap about HadCRUT and GISTEMP instead.

Let’s end the pseudo debate
Unfortunately that won`t happen `Watching`. That is not how our system works.
You only need to look at the `Language` of so-called debate, that is led by the `Denial-Lobby` for the benefit of Fossil-Fuel, and the added noise from the Nuke-Lobby that deliberately mis-label and mis-define things.

Political Correctness is also a problem.
As a boy, when l did something wrong, l got clipped over the ear-hole from my dad and got told to stop being a `dickhead`. Under political correctness, this does not happen. We are told bullshit that everybody`s opinion is important and everybody should be `heard`. The result is we now have an over-supply of `dickheads`, all making as much noise as possible, because nobody has ever told them to `be-quiet-dickhead`. This why the world and system we live in is full of Worrells

I almost didn’t bother answering this deluge of paranoid cospiracist ideation, but lets give it a try.

1. I’m not a paid lobbyist. I post comments about things I care about – same as most other people here.

2. I would like to see an expansion of nuclear power. This should be something you would like to see too, if you care about carbon emissions. Who cares about our motivation – every functioning nuclear power plant is a lot of CO2 which could have been emitted by burning coal which isn’t entering the atmosphere.

3. Pretend I’m green – I’m not. I despise the idea of putting trees and animals ahead of people. But I am a pollution triggered asthmatic, so cleaner air is desirable from my POV.

4. Reduction of my electricity bill – FFS, who doesn’t want to see a reduction in their bills? I’m certainly not happy with paying other people’s electricity bills through hidden renewables obligation charges.

Your electricity bill has gone up,rubber stamped by price regulators, at almost four times the rate of inflation over the last twenty plus years of privatisation…how much of that time was there a renewables levy component?

“I despise the idea of putting trees and animals ahead of people” But,through gritted teeth, you’ll acknowledge the biosphere has some acceptable qualities…nature,what a drag.

No small part of that rise in my electricity bill has been my involuntary contribution to paying the electricity bills of people who are lucky enough to have an area they can install solar cells.

I care about the biosphere – thats why I want to protect nature from people like you. The most hideously polluted damaged places on Earth are all in Communist countries – think the old Soviet levels of pollution, or modern China.

The most hideously polluted places are wherever we send our manufacturing in search of lowest cost,only some of which happen to have been Marxist/Maoist at some stage in their histories….and you want to protect nature from me?

I just wonder how you are able to protect yourself from so much of reality.

Let’s take away the $5B per year subsidies to coal and check out your electricity bill Eric. That said, even with the massive subsidies paid to the coal industry, renewables are the cheaper alternative. My panels and battery inverter system paid for itself in only 5 years and I am completely off the grid. Meanwhile you will continue to bitch and moan about the cost of power and continue your personal contribution to pollution.

The WHO study looked at air quality in 91 countries, measured by the amount of PM10 particles per cubic meter. PM10 particles are particles of 10 micrometers or less that can cause diseases and infections. According to the WHO, PM10 levels above 20 micrograms per cubic meter can cause health risks. The top ten most polluted countries have PM10 levels from six times to 14 times that level.

Back on topic- according to the Bureau of meteorology Perth has just experienced its warmest April on record with an average maximum temperature of 28.5 degrees. The previous April record was 28.2 degrees in both 1978 and 1999.

Get our pollies to explain that – along with all the other records being broken.

I assume that the brethren gathered here reflexively assert that record cold is also proof of their faith, and therefore it would it be de rigeur to ignore the record cold winters just experienced in europe, Russia and Nth America.

3:1 record highs to record lows. There are also papers that discuss in great depth how the changes in ice in the arctic result in both lower and higher temperatures due to perturbations of the jet stream. But since you aren’t intrerested in paying a subscription to read full papers……

Yes, yes I know. Above average temps is proof of CAGW. Below average temps is proof of CAGW. Indeed it seems the theory can’t be falsified. I wonder what Popper would say about that?
This, of course is why so many people now treat the warmist movement as a religion.

I’ve asked this question in many fora without ever getting a credible answer….what would it take for you to reject the theory or even question it? Clearly the relative plateauing of temps for close on 2 decades isn’t enough. So what would you need to see – continued plateauing for another 2 decades? Proof that water vapour was in decline? Proof that the deep seas aren’t heating up? Al Gore admitting it was all about the bucks? My experience is that most warmists haven’t ever considered that question and can’t foresee any way that the theory could be falsified, just as a fundamentalist Christian can’tsee anyway that someone could disprove their faith. No matter what evidence comes up, no matter how many predictions fail, they will always just rationalise it away and move on.

“But since you aren’t intrerested in paying a subscription to read full papers……”
Oh but I do subscribe to various science magazines..but not all. What I’m NOT interested in is asserting secret knowledge as debating point. That, to me, is the cowards route.

It’s not a secret. It just takes a subscription. It’s your reference. You provided it. I’m suggesting you read it in its entirety to avoid potentially misrepresenting it. As for your question, it would take a lot more than the insignificant warming of the past few years in the land surface temperatures. It would take the arctic to return to normal, the Antarctic peninsula to return to normal, Greenland’s mass balance to return to normal, the more than 29000 species that have undergone range shifts to return to their usual ranges, the glaciers to return to normal, the sea level and pH to return to normal, the temperature extreme anomalies to return to a 1:1 ratio, the ocean salinity around Antarctica to return to normal, and the hundreds of other lines of evidence to be reversed and it would take actual experts in those fields to report their results in peer reviewed journals to that end consistently. Unlike you, I recognise experts as experts. I do have some advice for you though, come to my university and undertake the course I used to teach. It’s called Understanding Science. Alternatively, you can do it online through Berkeley. When you understand the conventions of science you will be able to see why your position, just like other science illiterates here, Eric and Snafu, is so wrong.

After the embarrassment of predicting declining NH snow cover (record cover the last year or two), and a drying climate in Australia (much of Australia got flooded this year), and more hurricanes (there’s a long term hurricane drought, with hurricane strikes in places which observe such things, such as America, in decline), they don’t really do falsifiable predictions anymore.

1 or 2 years does not a trend make, Eric. You keep telling us it’s 17 years. Given that we have just come out of 2 of the largest La Nina’s on record and are currently in a neutral phase, the southern hemisphere results are expected. No surprises there. The NH results are more than likely due to the effects on the jet stream of the rapid decline in arctic ice. All documented.

NH snow cover is in decline in all seasons except winter,and before you go ‘huh?’,consider what that means for glaciers and for surface warming [lower albedo]. Yes,glaciers are shrinking because springs arrive quicker,summers are warmer and often persist into autumn,snow cover over glaciers is thinned or partial and equilibrium lines have risen. Less snow decreases reflection of solar energy,and less snow over darker glacier ice ditto

Despite a record la Nina,their is a statistically significant drying trend in south eastern Australia, and SW Australia has also been drying since the 1970s.

More hurricanes were never predicted. Discussion of the physics and modelling work suggested that there was no clear sign. What has been predicted noted is that hurricanes spin up faster,and the proportion of weaker hurricanes has fallen compared with the 4 & 5 categories. These possibilities were discussed. No predictions were made on the frequency of hurricanes striking land.

“Weather isn’t climate.” —————-!!!
Do you understand the difference?
I am referring to Perth’s monthly average temperature – not to a single value.

“natural?” ———-
The fact that it is a record means that it can only be a 1 in ~100 year event if it was just a statistical fluctuation. i.e. the chances of it being “natural” are very small. Even smaller if you take into the fact that similar records are being broken elsewhere.

Do No wrote :”“Weather isn’t climate.” —————-!!!
Do you understand the difference?”

This site is pretty funny. It seems to be populated by warmists who have adopted the view that simply pretending to know more than others, without the need to actually demonstrate it, is their major debating style.

Yes Dr No, I do know the difference. And I know that one month’s worth of temp data for any place, region, hemisphere or planet isn’t climate. Struth, does this mean that if I can find some place where the monthly average was very low, I can disprove CAGW in your mind?

I’ll tell you what….you find one climate scientist or even one person with two brain cells to rub together who thinks that one month’s data equals climate and I’ll reconsider my view that you are a thoughtless moron.

As to it being natural, its not a question of taking the odds. If, as is my view, the planet is still in the throes of the recovery from the LIA, record highs are very likely.

I’m sorry doc but if you’re gunna pretend to know more than others, you’ve gotta show it occasional.

Now let me get this straight…you think there’s such a thing as “normal” climate. You think there’s a ‘normal’ Arctic, you think there’s a ‘normal’ ice mass for Greenland; you think there’s a ‘normal’ state for glaciers;youy think there’s a ‘normal’ temperature.

Wow. and then you hold yourself up as someone who understands this stuff. Wow, again.

So, pray tell, what is ‘normal’ for temperatures? What does a ‘normal’ Arctic look like?

According to Marcott’s recent feeble effort at supporting MBH98 et al, for something like 20% of the last 11000 yrs, temperatures have been higher than present. Was that normal? When these fabled 29000 displaced critters relocated in those warmer periods, was that normal? Again, tell us when things were ‘normal’. Quarter past 3 last Tuesday? Wow, what a concept. Try as I might, its beyond mockery.

Given that the most usual state for the planet over the past 100000yrs has been cold glacial conditions, I’d guess we’d have to say that’s ‘normal’. So we can say that the theory is disproven when the great lakes freeze over. But even then you’d need to be told about it by your high priests. What a giggle.

It really is the strangest thing. I’d have thought that anyone who thought about this theory for any amount of time would have thought about what conditions would falsify it just as I, being sceptical of the theory, have thought about what things I’d need to see to make me change my views. But whenever I ask this simple question, I either get stunned, gawping silence, or as with uknow, a panicked, irrational rant that makes no logical sense and reveals someone whose understanding of science is a lot less than they purport.

Normal as in sitting within the 95% interval as it would be should there be no anthropogenic forcings. Easily calculated if you want to bother but if you want to deflect and make it some sort of question about my understanding of science based on my use of the word normal..bring it on and we will see who the dill is. You have already demonstrated your scienctific illiteracy by offering sources that don’t support your position.

If, as is my view, the planet is still in the throes of the recovery from the LIA, record highs are very likely.

Your argument is a mess. You say that the climate is recovering from the LIA, which implies a normal state to which it tends. Then you argue (correctly) that there is no normal state.

Apart from this confusion, you neglect to mention the *physical mechanism* which is driving this “recovery”. According to real climatologists, the LIA ended sometime around the mid-C19th. What is driving modern warming? Where is the energy coming from?

If you had a clearer understanding of the basics of physical climatology you would know that the climate system has no “normal” state as such. It tends towards (but does not reach) radiative equilibrium as determined by external forcings. Altered forcings shift that equilibrium so the climate *changes* accordingly. For example, orbital dynamics (Milankovitch) trigger deglaciations and modulate the return to glacial conditions. Interglacials and glacial maxima are quasi-equilibrium states to changes in orbital forcing.

I’ve asked this question in many fora without ever getting a credible answer….what would it take for you to reject the theory or even question it?

“Normal” was probably not the best choice of word but it’s a damn sight shorter than “the range within which human life and the ecological services which sustain it can survive”.
And from The PAGES-2k synthesis:

For example, there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.

This site is pretty funny. It seems to be populated by warmists who have adopted the view that simply pretending to know more than others, without the need to actually demonstrate it, is their major debating style.

Normal as in sitting within the 95% interval as it would be should there be no anthropogenic forcings

Whatever that means.The 95% interval of what? uknow, when you’re digging yourself into a big hole, the best idea is to stop digging. There is no normal climate although I know that many warmists pine for a return to some imagined ‘better’ climate. Its the Eden myth of the warmist religion. Might I suggest you go away and ponder what would falsify the theory in your eyes. I might help you to better understand the state of the science.

From BBD:

You say that the climate is recovering from the LIA, which implies a normal state to which it tends. Then you argue (correctly) that there is no normal state.

The word implies no such thing. But it is a standard form of words to describe the end of the LIA. Indeed Google “LIA” + “recovery” and you’ll get over 5 million responses. Its standard terminology.

Also from BBD who would re-evaluate AGW if there was a….:

Demonstration that CO2 did not absorb and re-radiate IR.

Wow, you guys need to get out ,more. Who exactly do you think is disputing the CO2 absorbs and radiates energy? This is not even close to the essence of the argument. No wonder you think sceptics are dumb if you think this is what they think. Its like saying that you’ll re-evaluate General Relativity when someone proves that there is no light. I again have to point out that if this is your criteria for fallibility of the theory then it can’t be falsified and therefore ceases to be science.

“Might I suggest you go away and ponder what would falsify the theory in your eyes”

Oh, I don’t know Mark, but perhaps an 80% increase in Arctic ice volume, the majority of glaciers in the world starting to grow again instead of shrinking, maybe the ocean starting to cool again and sea levels to decrease? (Oh, and oceans becoming less acidic too). Or perhaps the next decade having 10 years of the coolest temps compared with the last century instead of 10 of the hottest?

The northward march of plants and animal species being halted and maybe starting to reverse?

These are just off the top of my head but it would also be nice if you could provide a physical basis as to why the world would start to cool again in the first place considering the accelerating amounts of CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere.

That is by no means an exhaustive list but it will do for a start. If those things started happening within the next 10 years or so, I would happily concede to the Skeptics.

The way to get conservatives to be energy efficient is to NOT mention it’s good for the environment:

The study presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to “buy” either an old-school lightbulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb (CFL), the same kind Michelle Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says “Protect the Environment,” and “we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option,” said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business.

It truly is remarkable. Imagine being in a state of mind where you would choose to inflict more environmental damage than is necessary, merely to anger your political enemies. Reminds me of something Andrew Bolt suggested recently — that we should build floating mega-resorts directly on top of the Great Barrier Reef, not because of some perceived benefit, but because it would “make greens faint”.

“Dad, why don’t you buy the product which costs the same but has less environmental impact?”

“It’s like this, son. Every time we look after the planet, a green Gaia-worshiping eco-terrorist gets its wings.”

We must remember where Eric “We’re just fed up with lies thats all” Worrall is coming from. In case you missed it, here is Eric’s position, as expressed in comments on an earlier thread:

You can’t ignore us – because we can and will stop you from implementing solutions you favour, unless our conditions are satisfied.

We don’t believe there is a problem – so it is you who has to come to us. I don’t like coal, but I don’t fear it the way you do.

See it as blackmail, with the future viability of the ecosystem at stake, if you will – but work with us, or watch our deadlock destroy your world.

Your choice.

I have pointed out to Eric that he is digging a grave for his political descendants with his bare hands several times now. Unfortunately, Eric is rather stupid and does not understand the concept of blowback.

The paper predicts an imminent significant temperature drop, based on Fourier analysis of climate cycles.

They use correlations and statistics too. Given that DS thinks he can demonstrate global warming is continuing unchanged, using statistics, and this paper demonstrates an imminent drop in temperature, using statistics, I think we can all draw a more general conclusion that applying statistics to noisy data can yield conflicting results.

“This does not rule out a warming by anthropogenic influences such as an increase of atmospheric CO2 Such secular effects could have been incorporated by the DFT, e.g., into the 250-yr cycle obtained from M6, and would then not show up as a discrepancy between SM6 and RM6.”

In other words, without incorporating current anthropogenic forcings, they get a cooling….or in a way that you will really understand… if you choose to ignore stuff that is actually happening, you will believe anything.

Fourier analysis can’t predict anything. It’s used to describe oscillations but always describes any phenomenon as an oscillation. So analyzing an increasing function with Fourier analysis always results in a meaningless extrapolation that decreases afterwards.

Given that DS thinks he can demonstrate global warming is continuing unchanged, using statistics, and this paper demonstrates an imminent drop in temperature, using statistics, I think we can all draw a more general conclusion that applying statistics to noisy data can yield conflicting results.

Even if that paper wasn’t just playing silly Fourier games, the only ones drawing more general conclusions are those who confuse the future with the past.

Describing the climate as a set of overlapping cycles doesn’t seem completely implausible – after all, this is what the MIlankovich theory does, except on a longer timeframe.

But it does bring us to an interesting nexus, in which cyclic and solar theories are predicting a decline, CO2 theory is predicting a rise (0.2c or so gone awol), and nature is teasing us with a flatline.

Describing the climate as a set of overlapping cycles doesn’t seem completely implausible – after all, this is what the MIlankovich theory does, except on a longer timeframe.

No, Milankovitch cycles are based on the physics of the Earth’s orbit, and its effect on summer insolation in the northern hemisphere. Physics-based cycles are plausible. Blindly applying Fourier analysis without any physics justification is not.

The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.

4. Reduction of my electricity bill – FFS, who doesn’t want to see a reduction in their bills? I’m certainly not happy with paying other people’s electricity bills through hidden renewables obligation charges.

(and)

2. I would like to see an expansion of nuclear power. This should be something you would like to see too, if you care about carbon emissions. Who cares about our motivation – every functioning nuclear power plant is a lot of CO2 which could have been emitted by burning coal which isn’t entering the atmosphere.

total bullshit Worrell style
But is totally
`happy with paying other people’s electricity bills through hidden`
nukies `obligation charges`, or other corporate-welfare. Nukies are the MOST expensive power supply in the world

The expense of nuclear power is the red tape, waste disposal, and the cost of the multiple redundant safety precautions.

The reason all the multiple redundant safety systems are required is that most current plants are based on antiquated designs intended to optimise Plutonium production for weapons production.

There are much safer designs – for example, Pebble Bed, which can survive indefinite total coolant loss without a meltdown, and LFTR, which produces virtually no waste, and can also survive total coolant loss / power loss without a meltdown.

As for red tape – once China or India proves the safety and cheapness of nuclear power, the West will have no choice but to follow their lead, or see all remaining energy intensive economic activity move East. Unlike the West, China and India are taking a serious interest in nuclear innovation.

You keep repeating this Erric. Hasn’t it occured to you that the horrendous cost of nuclear power is not in setting off the chain rection but in controlling it?

Yes of course it has, this is what I have been saying. Current active safe nuclear systems are dangerous, and difficult to control, which is why they are so hideously expensive. To make them safe, you need layer after layer of redundancy, and as Fukishima showed, sometimes even that isn’t enough.

The solution to reducing the cost is passive safety – systems which shut themselves down if they overheat, which can survive total coolant loss without a meltdown or any other dangerous activity which is likely to lead to a release of radioactive contamination.

For example, the liquid fluoride salt reactors have two levels of passive safety.

First, if the core overheats, the salt physically expands, reducing the density of the core. The drop in density increases the distance between atoms, allowing more neutrons to escape the core without stimulating new fission, causing the reaction to cool.

In addition, the liquid fluoride design has a second trick. The nuclear reaction requires the liquid salt to be in close proximity with its control rods. Nuclear reactions have fairly precise requirements – some nuclear reactions stop working if the neutrons emitted by fission are too energetic, so the control rods actually slow the neutrons down to the optimum velocity. Liquid salt reactors use a plug of solidified salt to keep the liquid reaction material in the reactor core. The plug is kept cool by an electrically operated fan. If the core material overheats, or if the electricity to the fan is cut, the plug melts, causing the liquid salt to drain into a drain tank, physically removing the material away from its moderators, and making it physically impossible for the chain reaction to continue.

Prototype reactors have been built which proves this, and other approaches to passive safe technology works. But its new – and bureaucrats don’t like new. So anyone who wants approval for a nuclear reactor is better off submitting an inherently dangerous conventional design, of a type which has received approval many times in the past.

Let’s take away the $5B per year subsidies to coal and check out your electricity bill Eric. That said, even with the massive subsidies paid to the coal industry, renewables are the cheaper alternative.

My panels and battery inverter system paid for itself in only 5 years and I am completely off the grid. Meanwhile you will continue to bitch and moan about the cost of power and continue your personal contribution to pollution

Hey uknow, do you have info, tech specs on your inverter/panel system.?
l searched your blog but didn`t get any results. l reckon you should post the the technicals of your system and building so folks can learn about getting off the grid, which l also hope to do.

The so-called `solution` side.
1. The Very, very expensive Nukie push.
2. Carbon Tax.
3. Trading Derivatives.
These all fail to protect the environment, but merely swap areas of environmental damage to another area, or over-price the electricity and drive the poorest out of the ability to have electricity.

Option 3 – The Chicago Climate Exchange went bust when fraud and excess permits caused the carbon price to crash to zero. The European carbon market looks like it will follow shortly. The few remaining carbon markets, even if they survive, will not make a difference.

Option 2 – Good luck. With the world still struggling with a global recession, noone wants to hear about economic measures which destroy jobs. A few places like Australia, which have escaped the full force of the global economic problems, still toy with luxuries like feel good taxes, but as the recent swing to UKIP in Britain shows, people are increasingly seeing politicians who waffle on about the environment as out of touch, when all the voters care about is where next week’s paycheck is coming from.

Which leaves Option 1 – as something you aren’t even prepared to look at.

A nuclear chain reaction is so easy and cheap to create that even a kid can do it using his pocket money allowance. Here is the story of a kid who did just that.

David Charles Hahn (born October 30, 1976), also called the “Radioactive Boy Scout” or the “Nuclear Boy Scout”, is an American who attempted to build a homemade breeder nuclear reactor in 1994, at age 17.

The expense of nuclear power is the red tape, waste disposal, and the cost of the multiple redundant safety precautions.

While his reactor never reached critical mass, Hahn attracted the attention of local police who found radioactive materials in the trunk of his car. His mother’s property was cleaned up by the Environmental Protection Agency ten months later as a Superfund cleanup site. sounds like Worrell wants to sell do it yourself Nukies to the neighborhood kids

I’m not advocating kids build nuclear reactors, I’m using Hahn as evidence that creating a nuclear reaction is really cheap. All the costs associated with building nuclear reactors are red tape or safety related – and can therefore potentially be reduced.

The only reason Hahn’s reactor never achieved critical mass is he ran out of pocket money to buy Thorium. All his components worked, he was successfully transmuting his Thorium into U233, and releasing hideous amounts of radiation – it turns out duct tape is not very effective as radiation shielding.

The critical mass of a fission reactor is the mass of fissile material required to maintain a chain reaction. If the mass of a reaction surpasses its critical mass, the result is an uncontrolled chain reaction that culminates in a large explosion (this is how an atomic bomb works).

All the costs associated with building nuclear reactors are red tape or safety related – and can therefore potentially be reduced.

Erric is now on record as saying he wants no safety regulations for his favoured nuclear power plants.
He also omits the costs of controlling a nuclear reaction to produce electricity. Basically he is suggesting a deployment of nuclear bombs. Not sure how that helps us Erric, but if they could put the first one next to your place I, for one, would be very pleased.

I’m sure that’s not what he means. In fact, I was being pedantic because I thought 730reportland was referring to prompt criticality and I just wanted to stress that nuclear reactors can’t become nuclear bombs.

The fact that DS so far is the only person on this site who is taking what I am saying about nuclear power at all seriously is a concern.

To ignore or deride the possibility of radical reductions in CO2 emissions, with the active *support* of right wingers like myself, seems bizarre to the point of insanity – given you guys have stated that reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future survival of humanity.

You know him better than I do, so I defer. However, thanks to your archived material, I now know that EW likes the climate science = eugenics meme, so I am prepared to think the worst of him in any given context.

Way back in the early 1990’s a great Australian named John Daly wrote a book called “the Greenhouse Trap”.. Even though the great AGW scare was barely off the ground, in the book he accurately predicted that it would become politicised and the broad parameters of the debate. He also predicted, based on the known cycles and the sunspot data, that there would be slowing of the warming in the late 2000s followed by a cooling through to 2030 or so. You might remember him from the Climategate emails when the unspeakable swine Phil Jones expressed happiness at Daly’s death. Daly had previously had the temerity to point out some rather glaring errors in the CRU data which revealed their warming bias.

Anyway, Daly also predicted that there would be a push toward nuclear as a way to reduce CO2 emissions and opined that this was one of the reasons the AGW theory was getting such a run when the data didn’t support it. His view was that Australia ought to ignore the push to nuclear and get as much energy as possible from coal while selling as much uranium as the world wanted. Its a view I endorse.

I don’t much care what the rest of the world does about it energy needs. But here we ought to take advantage of our cheap coal supplies and use them until they run out (in 3 or 4 centuries!) or until a better technology is implemented. If that’s thorium, then great. But until then, we need to ignore the chicken-littles and use our most valuable natural resource.

The fact that DS so far is the only person on this site who is taking what I am saying about nuclear power at all seriously is a concern.

Not true. I have stated here that most credible projections suggest a ~30% contribution from nuclear and ~30% from renewables to global electricity generation by mid-century assuming both sectors are developed as fast as possible.

I have stated that we cannot do without either. I did so in response to one of your anti-renewables comments.

The fact that DS so far is the only person on this site who is taking what I am saying about nuclear power at all seriously is a concern.

Not true. I have stated here that most credible projections suggest a ~30% contribution from nuclear and ~30% from renewables to global electricity generation by mid-century assuming both sectors are developed as fast as possible.

I have stated that we cannot do without either. I did so in response to one of your anti-renewables comments.

I am completely serious about the nuclear thing, though my motivation is mostly economic rather than environmental.

Like Watts, I’m a techno-enthusiast. I genuinely believe the dollar price of nuclear power should be lower than the price of coal power, that the obstacles to this are political rather than technological.

We don’t care about CO2 – but you guys say you do! So it’s puzzling that you are so lukewarm about the one low carbon power source we would enthusiastically support.

When we oppose green power, we do so because of the cost. Ultra cheap nuclear would be a wet dream for most of us. Ultra low carbon nuclear should light your fire too.

A John Daly enthusiast? That would explain the poor state of your knowledge,Mark. At least crack an IPCC report to figure out what he claimed to be objecting against.

Come on, Nick, do you really think I haven’t read the 4 IPCC reports; that Daly is my sole source? I’m gunna keep pounding on this, but it really and truly is possible to be as well informed on the subject but to reach different conclusions to you. Just because Lindzen disagrees with your views doesn’t mean his ill-informed. Or Dyson, or Lomborg, or Svensmark, or Itoh, or Giaever, or Khabibullo Abdusamatov. And the list goes on. All very well informed, all to varying degrees sceptical of the consensus.

I just find it so childish to simply assert that someone must be ill-informed if they haven’t reached the same conclusions as you. But then its so typical of those on the left. they have this self-image as being educated,smart and considered. Its a small step from that to assuming anyone who doesn’t agree with them must be ill-educated, or dumb or on the devil’s payroll.

You know it really is possible to reach different conclusions, to place different emphasis on agreed data. Those who say its all down to CO2 might be right. Equally those who say it’s primarily natural might be right. We’ll know in the next decade or two…although I can see some warmists in 2030 saying, “oh well we haven’t had any warming for 40yrs but that doesn’t disprove the theory. Just you wait, next year it’ll be really hot, just you wait.”

But at the moment I’m perfectly comfortable that everything including the data is moving in the sceptics favour.

When we oppose green power, we do so because of the cost. Ultra cheap nuclear would be a wet dream for most of us. Ultra low carbon nuclear should light your fire too.

What about constraints on the build-out rate for nuclear plant? You keep on ignoring this and acting as though coal can be displaced from global electricity generation by nuclear in a matter of a few decades.

On what do you base this supposition? Because to me it sounds like wishful thinking.

Most energy realists seem to agree that we are not in a position to pick winners. Rather, we will need every available low-carbon technology at our disposal to displace ~50% FFs from global electricity generation by mid-century.

“Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.”

The sunspot reconstruction in Solanki et al. (2004) is derived from an 11,400y tree ring δ14C isotopic archive. This is not the final word on Holocene solar variability. The radiocarbon record *also* captures the effects of carbon cycling, particularly as influenced by deep ocean circulation changes, *and* variability in solar magnetic flux/intensity of Earth’s geomagnetic dipole – see Snowball & Muscheler (2007). In other words, don’t over-interpret the Solanki curve because it is not what it seems.

You don’t know enough about paleoclimate to treat it as a sandbox for your denialism so don’t do it.

But what is getting harder to ignore is the lack of warming. At least 0.2c which should have occurred (assuming a climate sensitivity of 3c / doubling) has gone missing. Alarmists claim it has been swallowed by the ocean – but noone seems to be predicting when it will show up again.

Svensmark’s theory has received plenty of serious attention. A number of groups have researched his and similar claims,and the CERN work wasn’t cheap either. Eric,of course science is interested in proposals like Svensmark’s. It_has_not_been_ignored!!

The results: claims that GCR mediated nucleation of cloud is important are unfounded

The equatorial tropospheric hotspot, the key prediction of the water vapour enhanced greenhouse effect which underpins alarmist estimates, is also proving a little elusive – but you guys still pretend enhanced greenhouse is settled science.

Svensmark at least still seems to be taken seriously – he’s publishing papers in GRL etc. This one is interesting – published in MNRAS.

The equatorial tropospheric hotspot, the key prediction of the water vapour enhanced greenhouse effect which underpins alarmist estimates, is also proving a little elusive – but you guys still pretend enhanced greenhouse is settled science.

Let me know when water vapour is shown not to be a GHG and conclusive observational evidence for the absence of the hot spot is in. Ditto when there is a shred of evidence supporting the climatological effects claimed by Svensmark.

OMG, you mean to tell me that Daly wrote a book that was mildly successful among those who were searching for the truth on AGW and he made some money from it. Shocking…never happened before. Absolute proof that he was only saying all things sceptic for the big bucks…who could possibly pass up 3 grand a year.

Pathetic.

Funny that the site you link doesn’t get around to mentioning the CRU issue where Daly found significant errors in their data and then had to drag them kicking and screaming to admit it. I wonder how the site missed that?

There was also another case where the geniuses at the Uni of Hobart ran an experiment to compare UV exposure in Tassie with that in Chicago so as to prove the massive danger of the so-called ozone hole. They triumphantly announced that, indeed, Tasmanians were suffering greater UV exposure in summer than their NH counterparts. The only problem was that they somehow forgotten to take account of the fact that the SH is closer to the sun in summer than the NH is in its summer and taking that into account completely invalidated their results. When Daly pointed this out on “SWFG”, the paper was quietly withdrawn, never to be heard of again.

In a better world, Daly would be an aussie hero while Flannery would still be picking up possum dung. The site you linked shows why its not a better world.

Daly’s site is…interesting. He’s one of those ‘completists’ :accordingly,there is nothing that is right about climate science,apparently. This sort of overreach is a classical indicator of wingnuttery. Daly actually disputed that it was warming….extraordinary. That’s a lot of airbrushing of glaciers….

No nothing more on the UV issue I’m afraid. It occurred prior to 1995 and therefore prior to SWFG. I came across it at a function where Daly spoke and verified it from a Tasmania news clipping. But I don’t know that it was ever digitalised.

Yes his site is interesting. It was really among the first to use the WWW to examine science, predating CA, RC, WUWT and even Junkscience. Its format is very chaotic which reflected the man. But in its heyday it got thousands of hits from all around the world. It was an exiting time to see this new medium holding academia to account and, as with the CRU debacle, teaching them a little humility.

Daly didn’t dispute it was warming but he did dispute that the temperature records were good enough to make the call definitively. He was the first to call for a BEST style re-evaulation of the record but one based solely on sites not affected by UHIE. Long before Watts started to show how bad many of the temp stations were, Daly was examining individual sites. In his book he extensively covered the various siting problems. and how they might distort the data. Similarly he extensively covered the problems with the historical sea temp data.

Crystallising his views would be tough, but basically he thought there probably was mild warming (but we couldn’t be sure) but that climate change was explained by natural forces with CO2’s ability to affect climate being severely limited due to the fact that it was nearing saturation levels in terms of IR absorption.

He was very much of the view that that big yellow thing in the sky played a much bigger role in climate change than puny man adding a small amount to a minor GHG.

You mean like how the unsusidised whole-of-life cost of electricity generated from new wind installations is cheaper than the unsubsidised whole of life cost of electricity generated from new coal installations, even when the “carbon tax” is excluded.

So when aging coal plants are retired, Eric will recommend replacing the capacity with wind! Who knew?

John, its not that we allow it to pollute for free. Well, we do, but the real reason is that we subsidise the hell out of all coal’s real costs. Even if you ignore the pollute-for-free factor, coal is not the cheapest.

Eric’s knee-jerk rejection is interesting but wrong of course. I know that he finds this idea threatening and will be difficult, if not impossible, for him to incorporate into his worldview, but the *facts* are that new wind installations have been costed at $80 per MWh (unsubsidised whole-of-life cost of electricity actually generated) while new coal plants are costed at $143 per MWh (unsubsidised whole-of-life cost of electricity actually generated). Even excluding the carbon tax leaves them more expensive than wind.

Of course *existing* installations are cheaper because they have paid off their start up costs, but as existing plant is “lifed”, Eric’s own argument says that installing wind would be preferable to replacing like with like (which is not to say other methods might not be cheaper again).

So we have a form of low carbon energy cheaper than coal – so its time for the hypocrisy to end, isn’t it Eric?

Yeah, he was too old. He’s certainly too old to try again. But he was popular with swing voters – as a social liberal, he would have had some appeal to Democrats, and as a fiscal conservative he would have won a lot of tea partiers.

The Nazis were racists and thieves. The intention to steal the property of Germany’s neighbors pretty much regardless of religion and ethnicity was always as important as the racism of the insane core of the Nazis. The racism was just one way of justifying their shitty thieving and occupation of others property and redirection of their profits. Many opportunistic Germans went along for the ride with the racists,without themselves possessing any overt and rationalised racism as a motivator….though doubtless as the moral implications and physical manifestation of their expedience began to nag,they became overtly racist in justification.

it seems to me,
Spain stopped building a Nukie,
Portugal won`t have them,
Germany is looking for non-Nukie options and want to be rid of Nukies,
Sweden, similar to Germany,
Populations of most Nations want to see other options used, Govts too, the braying donkey should build his own Nukie if it`s so cheap

The German example is particularly funny. The country with the most experience with renewables, when the chips are down, when they need a source of energy to replace the nukies they plan to decommission, is building 20 new coal generators.

It’s a funny example for a nuke nut to cite. Germany isn’t the bastion of renewables you hold it out to be, “according to the OECD factbook 2011-2012, Germany attains 9.3% of its total energy requirements(including electricity and other energy needs) from renewable energy sources, which is below the world average of 13.1%. With other countries worldwide, such as the following OECD members – Iceland(85.3%), New Zealand(38.6%), Norway(37.3%), Sweden(32.7%),Austria(26%) Portugal(24%), Finland(24.9%), Chile(22.7%), Switzerland(18.8%), Denmark(18.8%), Canada(16.5%), Estonia(14.4%), Spain(11.4%), Turkey(11%), Mexico(10.3%) and Italy(10.2%) all attaining more of their total energy needs from renewable sources than Germany(9.3%).[3] Worldwide, other non-OECD members with higher percentages of renewable energy supplying their total energy needs are – Brazil(45.8%), Indonesia(34.4%), India(26.1%) and China(11.9%),”

Extremists prosper in times of political turmoil, because people are so fed up with being disenfranchised by politicians who lied to them, they look for politicians they can trust – even if that trust has a price.

If it wasn’t for UKIP, it might have been the BNP – and they really are a bunch of racist NAZI thugs.

I once spent 20 minutes knocking back very expensive champaign with Nigel Farage at a book launch in London – just him and me having a rather drunk chat.

He’s not a nutter, at least not obviously – he’s very much someone who speaks his mind, doesn’t give a shit if he sometimes says something unpopular. He proved that recently when he refused to distance himself from the UKIP plan to repeal the public area smoking ban.

He was sympathetic with my plan to leave the UK.

I think after years of being lied to by smarmy politicians who backflip with every opinion poll, people in the UK are desperate for someone who seems normal – and Farage, whatever his faults, gives the impression that he is just being himself – that he is having an awful lot of fun.

The champas was free, paid for by the people who were hosting the book launch – that is why I could afford to knock it back :-).

The house was a 3 story townhouse with a back yard, just round the corner from Harrods, in central London. The people who owned it had had inherited a hotel chain or somesuch, or built it up themselves – my memory is a bit fuzzy about that part of the night :-). Every furnishing in the place looked like it would cost me a year’s income – I was frightened to sit on the sofa.

I doubt that – someone with Farage’s political skills could easily have become a senior Conservative minister by now, if he had chosen to hold his nose and play the game.

Being a member of UKIP is very much about not playing the game – that is why they are winning a lot of support.

And calling a significant proportion of the UK electorate “cranks”, people who in many cases formerly voted Conservative or Labour or whatever all their lives, is a foolish complacency I hope his opponents share.

If the future stability of the planetary environment is at stake, surely the risk of a few nuclear meltdowns and problems with waste disposal pale into insignificance compared to the risk of failing to reduce CO2 emissions.

You may doubt it, Eric,but eight were under construction a year ago…which means the planning and approval were locked in before the nuke wind-down decision. Germany was never like France,with nuclear dominating total output.

Years ago, l heard similar lunacy to this with some type of fish or seafood, l can`t remember exactly which tho. Let`s say it was `Sardines`. The tinned sardines labeled `from_sustainable_fishing` would NOT be selected by the cranks, even when the price was exactly the same. lt actually also demonstrated a certain amount of market failure too, that `choice` is often NOT a good thing, if the population can be poisoned with false information and Govt needed to regulate fish stocks, not abdicate to market forces.

On the other hand, the perpetually gullible can be convinced to fork out more for something they are told is ‘organic’ even though its health benefits are equivocal at best and environmental benefits non-existent.

On the other hand, the perpetually gullible can be convinced to fork out more for something they are told is ‘organic’

The perpetually gullible can also be convinced that
Trickle-down, Thatcher-nomics, Reagan-omics are good for everyone.
Saddam Hussein possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Fox is `Fair and Balanced`.
Nukies don`t need safety and disposal Laws.

$$$ l hear you Mark, but in the `Fish` story l read about years ago, they were not trying to extract a `premium`, as the marketeers say. Even tho the `product` was followed from `hook` to plate, it was more about sustainable fisheries, and the problematic items that was encountered. l thought it was interesting the `light-bulb` story paralleled the fish story.

The World Meteorological Organization has confirmed that 2012 joined the 10 previous years as one of the warmest — at ninth place — on record despite the cooling influence of a La Nina episode early in the year.

This is the ninth warmest year since records began in 1850 and the 27th consecutive year that the global land and ocean temperatures were above the 1961–1990 average, according to the statement. The years 2001–2012 were all among the top 13 warmest years on record.

BBD tells us that Piekle was totally wrong and that, in BBD’s mind, is sufficient proof that Piekle is wrong. No evidence is required, merely BBD’s assertions. He did after all put them in bold, so it must be true, right?
Well I’m sorry BBD but I rarely take mere assertions as evidence, especially assertions from self-important blow-hards.

To distil the essence of this Marcott we need to understand that there is a problem with the proxy record as regards the late 20th century where things like tree-rings indicate a declining temperature while, as we know, we’ve probably had rising temperature. This is why Mann needed to use his trick to hide the decline. Now, if proxy records disagree with instrument records post 1950, why would we have any confidence that they agree pre-1950?

Therefore, simply putting the two together as though it is a seemless connect, is somewhat fraught. As Maharosey eloquently put it, its like combining apples and bananas and asserting you are peaches.

Now BBD and a few others seem to think that Marcott simply saying, after being found out, that they’ll rely on the instrument record to fix their non-robust proxy record is valid and the end of the story.

But it ain’t. That’s why Piekle and others have been ignoring that particular sleight of hand and pointing out that the graph is valid only up 1900. Piekle, in the essay that BBD asserts (in bold!) is wrong specifically talks about the reconstruction. He barely even acknowledges the attempt to graft the instrument record since it is too silly to bother with.

The real problem with all this is that, even though Marcott et al, in the actual paper , sort of, kinda allow that their post 1900 data isn’t all that great, nonetheless went public with claims that they’d shown that we were all headed for disaster. But their proxy data can’t in any way shape or form, be used to make that claim. It relies entirely on the hope (for that’s all it is ) that the instrument record and the proxy record are compatible.

Now let’s sit back and hear BBD et al, tell me that I’m total wrong (in bold!) because he says I’m wrong and if I keeping on failing to acknowledge his uninformed assertions as being paramount, then I’ll just need to censored since we can’t have people talking the truth on a subject as important as this.

“That’s why Piekle and others have been ignoring that particular sleight of hand and pointing out that the graph is valid only up 1900.”

Must have missed that paper. Got a DOI or plain citation for that? No? Well, with all your hard blowing about not liking assertions, in the scientific world, a world with which you are clearly unfamiliar, until something is peer-reviewed and published, especially if it is as important as a major flaw in a scientific paper, it is merely an assertion.

Here, you have clearly shown your hand and that is one of utter denial of anything that supports the AGW consensus and utter acceptance of mere assertions that suit your point of view…even though you don’t accept assertions. It’s a wonder your head doesn’t explode holding conflicting positions like that. Like Eric, it’s time to put you in the troll category and stop feeding you. With a bit of luck you will crawl back under whichever rock and stop wasting everybody’s time with your unsubstantiated assertions.

“BBD tells us that Piekle was totally wrong and that, in BBD’s mind, is sufficient proof that Piekle is wrong. No evidence is required, merely BBD’s assertions. He did after all put them in bold, so it must be true, right?”

This just illustrates my point that perhaps it is not just poor English comprehension that distinguishes our denialist brethren, but poor cognitive function as well.

If BBD had not provided a direct quote from Pielke, then Mark might have a point. However, BBD did provide a quote and that quote conclusively proved that either Pielke hadn’t read Marcott fully, or he was lying about it. Thats it. In either case Pielke was wrong.

Now that wasn’t just an assertion from BBD, he proved it, by providing the quote.. The fact that Mark is unable to process this simple piece of reasoning explains his total inability to understand other more complicated concepts, even when they are explained over and over and over again, ad nauseum ad infinitum.

Nope, cherry picking is when you pick only the bits which appear to support your case and ignore the bits that don’t.

As in only highlighting this part of a sentence:

“Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, and cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, ”

and ignoring the final portion:

“and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”

Plus ignoring this bit altogether:

“To compare our Standard5×5 reconstruction with modern climatology, we aligned the stack’s mean for the interval 510 to 1450 yr B.P. (where yr B.P. is years before 1950 CE) with the same interval’s mean of the global Climate Research Unit error-in-variables (CRU-EIV) composite temperature record, which is, in turn, referenced to the 1961–1990 CE instrumental mean.”

How are your remedial English comprehension classes going by the way? Just asking.

You could do with a basic science course as well, so that you truly understand what “cherry picking” means.

These bluffing clowns haven’t even read M13. As we both know. When I asked Mark to engage substantively above over the supposed issues with M13, he disappeared. He knew he was going to get mauled. Ditto this catweazel buffoon.

“Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, and cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, ”

and ignoring the final portion:

“and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”

Huh? I actually quoted the phrase you say I ignored. But, heh, why let the facts get in the way of what you want to be true?

Marcott, when the paper first came out, was more than happy to spruik it by declaring that

What we found is that temperatures increased in the last 100 years as much as they had cooled in the last 6,000 or 7,000,…In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we’ve seen in the whole Holocene,.

It was only under severe pressure that he retreated from this.

You may want to make the case that the thermometer data can be plunked on the end of the paleo data to make a whole, but that is a very weak case. And this is before we even start to think about the re-dating of core data. Mixing two entirely different data types just can’t be done unless impressive correlation in the over-lapping periods can be shown.

Although, when I say can’t be done I mean it shouldn’t be done. Clearly it CAN be done since Marcott attempted to do it and its a favourite method to “hide the decline”. 🙂

On the other hand, even if you allow that the insertion of the thermometer data is valid, Marcott still has the problem of data resolution. Nowhere in the paleo data has he got sufficient or sufficiently good data to resolve down to 50 or 100 yrs. So it is entire invalid to declare that the purported warming of the past 100yrs is unprecedented. (please don’t now start quoting Tamino).

The fact is there is no evidence that the warming since 1850 is unusual in either scope or speed.

The fact is there is no evidence that the warming since 1850 is unusual in either scope or speed.

Apart from the disappearing Arctic ice, the retreating glaciers, the melting Greenland ice sheet, the hottest years on record being overwhelmingly in the twenty first century, the last three decades being progressively warmer and warmer, the flora and fauna moving habitat toward the poles, the increasing ocean heat content etc etc.
No evidence at all.

Ok Mark, fair cop. You did quote the whole sentence, however, your extremely poor English comprehension got the better of you when you attempted to explain it:

“For those who struggle to follow such things (yes we’re talking about you BBD) Marcott went from saying that one of the most important findings of the paper was the 20th century uptick to saying that their data was so poor you couldn’t draw any conclusions from the so-called uptick.”

That is most assuredly NOT what they said. They went on to say that because the 20th C Proxy was not robust they were using the 20th century INSTRUMENT data set for their conclusions. This is the bit you failed to mention. How’s that remedial English comprehension course going, by the way?

As for your issues with the data analysis, nobody else apart from anti-science denialists had a problem with their methodology, and their reconstruction agrees with many other reconstructions of around that period, which is a good indication that it is correct.

As for your beef that it is somehow bad practice to mix paleo temperature reconstructions with modern instrument data. WTF is wrong with using the best available data? What were they going to do, throw away the modern instrument dataset and say, “oops, sorry, we can’t say anything about the 20th century”?

And the other constant refrain about how, because of the smoothing carried out, a temperature uptick similar to modern times wouldn’t have shown up. Well, McI, being a statistican, could have actually carried out some original science, (instead of constantly auditing others), and inserted test temperature data of similar amplitude and extent to the 20 C, into the paleo dataset, to see if it would have shown up in the reconstruction, instead of just assuming that it wouldn’t. Shouldn’t have been beyond his much vaunted skills.

Tamino did just that, and conclusively proved that yes indeed, similar, temperature spikes as the current one, would indeed have shown up, thereby destroying one of the main Skeptic memes.

A global average MWP bump is not the same thing as a global average warmer than today. That would only have happened if all the “MWPs” in different parts of the world had actually happened at the same time as each other.

Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high
frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard 5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack (Fig. 3).

As others have also pointed out, Marcott et al. has withstood all scrutiny and the contrarian response has been nothing more than serial misrepresentation. Misrepresentation that you are perpetuating despite correction.

Marcott has come sailing through the “best” McIntyre could throw at it – and its conclusions stand. But then they would; it’s just yet another line of evidence demonstrating man’s influence upon the client since the industrial revolution.

The Master Auditor’s personal attacks have just added some lustre to the paper.

But one point that any observer should be able to clearly conclude is that the public representation of the paper was grossly in error. The temperature reconstruction does not allow any conclusions to be made about the period after 1900. [?]

Does the public misrepresentation amount to scientific misconduct? I’m not sure, but it is far too close to that line for comfort. Saying so typically leads to a torrent of angry ad hominem and defensive attacks, and evokes little in the way of actual concern for the integrity of this highly politicized area of science. Looking past the predictable responses, this mess can be fixed in a relatively straightforward manner with everyone’s reputation intact.

This is beyond parody. It seems like every time someone disagrees with you, its because they haven’t read the paper, or are English deprived or whatever. Its never that they interpret data differently to you, or are (shock horror) better informed than you. Now we find that Piekle, who wrote extensively on the shambles that the Marcott paper became, hadn’t read it or (more ominously) something worse.

Here’s a thought…maybe Piekle read it with an eye as to what it said and what the authors had made of their data, rather than an eye to trying to find a way to excuse the authors for their over-egging the pudding.

I’m well aware that the true believers will continue to assert that this paper is flawless and represents the last word in temperature records. It’ll probably end up with a prominent place in AR5 (not sure if it makes it due to timing) just like its ill-fated big daddy MBH98. And in the end I think its pretty good science all the way up to 1900. But a young chap just starting a career in climate science needs to do more than good science. This one thought he needed to ingratiate himself with the hockey team and so tried to make more of the data than it warranted, especially when ‘selling’ it to press – yet another example of science by press-release creating problems.

In the end the only value of the paper to the AGW crowd is the uptick and now that that has been thoroughly exposed maybe the paper can take its place as another version of the attempt to understand past climate rather than as a signal of future disaster.

Its been interesting watching the various attempts to pull the chestnuts out of the fire…the funniest being Tamino.who creates an entirely artificial scenario and then, without any workings mind you, declares that spikes would have shown up in Marcott if they existed. This can be easily refuted but the true believers ate it up with a spoon and swooned.

” But a young chap just starting a career in climate science needs to do more than good science. This one thought he needed to ingratiate himself with the hockey team and so tried to make more of the data than it warranted,”

Baseless allegation.

Piekle has been exposed time and again for faulty analysis, so this time is no different.

As for:

“Tamino.who creates an entirely artificial scenario and then, without any workings mind you, declares that spikes would have shown up in Marcott if they existed”

Well no, you lot say that similar spikes wouldn’t have shown up in the past, so he conducted an experiment to see if they would, and they did. Sure it’s an artificial scenario, but it was you denialistas that were pushing it. He just proved you wrong.

Tamino is a qualified statistician who has written text books on the subject, so I think I would back him over a retired minerals prospector or a “meteorologist” who never managed to qualify in meteorology (or anything else for that matter), wasting 8 years of University study.

The lack of qualifications and credentials of the “experts” you guys defer to, never seems to amaze me, and yet you are all so absolutely sure that you are right and the rest of the scientific community is wrong. Face palm stuff… Really

Initially I thought you just had poor English comprehension skills, but now it seems you have cognitive impairment issues as well. Even after being told over and over again you are still harping on about this? I can see now why Watts spent 8 years at university and still never managed to graduate in anything. His professor must have given up in despair and written “Do not resuscitate” on his report card.

I say again, the proxy issue in the 20th century is a not an issue. We have modern instrument data, and after 1980, satellite temperature data to work with. Much more accurate than proxies. So it is not important, it doesn’t matter. It is, a DEAD PARROT. The only reason that it is still sitting on its perch is because you have nailed it there!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using paleo reconstructed temperatures and modern instrument temperatures on the same graph, as long as you clearly label them. Again, there is nothing wrong with using the most accurate data we have available. Obviously, we do not have intstrumented data going back thousands of years, therefore we have to use proxies. There have been thousands of studies done with proxy temperatures so the methodology is pretty well worked out and accurate. Various proxies agree with each other so we can be confident in their accuracy. A problem has been found with recent proxy data, which is well known and has been documented for over 10 years. We don’t know why it is happening, (could be all the crap we are dumping in the environment), however, IT DOESN’T MATTER, because we have modern instrumented temperatures, covering the same period, which would have trumped the proxy data even if it had been accurate. That is what Marcotte et al used for their conclusions. They admitted the later proxy temps were problematic, SO THEY DID NOT USE THEM IN THEIR CONCLUSIONS. Yet you scientific illiterates keep pretending they did, even after being corrected over and over again. (Mega Face Palm).

For over two thousand years doctors used leeches to attempt to cure various ailments. It was the best technology they had. Now we have modern drugs which are far, far better. Would you have us ignore that technology and go back to blood letting on the grounds that modern medicine is unfair to the germs?

What’s the matter with you for Christ’s sake? Have you used up all your available brain cells?

I’ve had about enough of your inability to read and understand the language Mark, so we are going to have gloves-off moment.

Pielke was totally incorrect to say this:

But one point that any observer should be able to clearly conclude is that the public representation of the paper was grossly in error. The temperature reconstruction does not allow any conclusions to be made about the period after 1900.

Get that? Totally wrong. It is either a blatant misrepresentation or he hadn’t read M13. You can choose your preferred explanation.

You are sub-literate and entirely ignorant of what M13 does and does not say. Your commentary here is stupid, repetitive, time-wasting trollery. You have merely parroted the lies and misinformation of others. You aren’t even original in your ways of being wrong.

This is the sort of repetitive lying that needs to be moderated out of comments here:

In the end the only value of the paper to the AGW crowd is the uptick and now that that has been thoroughly exposed maybe the paper can take its place as another version of the attempt to understand past climate rather than as a signal of future disaster.

No. Totally wrong, and you have been corrected on this point again and again and again, so you *must know* that you are wrong. Therefore you are deliberately repeating misinformation.

He has created an entirely artificial scenario and then asserted that, in all circumstances, century long temperature spikes would show up even in 300 yr smoothing. And in the scenario he creates that’s true. That scenario shows temps leaping from some base level, peaking and then falling to that base level again. Its hardly surprising then that that spike would show up following the smoothing
But, what about other scenarios. Now I know that for many of you, even contemplating that people like Abdussamatov might be right and that we might see actual extended falls in temps this century below the base line, is heresy. But just for the fun of it, lets pretend that this might happen.

So we get a 0.7c spike through the 20th century and then a, let’s say,Dalton minimum type decline through the 21st century such that we don’t just return to the base line prior to the spike but some much lower base line. Now do your smoothing and see if the spike is still visible?

These are all speculative scenarios. But to take one special scenario and say it applies to all possible scenarios is heroic at best.

In the end, Marcott’s proxy data can neither prove nor disprove that the 20th century warming was unprecedented in scope or speed. Asserting otherwise is the victory of hope over data.

So we get a 0.7c spike through the 20th century and then a, let’s say,Dalton minimum type decline through the 21st century such that we don’t just return to the base line prior to the spike but some much lower base line. Now do your smoothing and see if the spike is still visible?

The more exaggerated the spike – as in your example – the more it would be visible under Tamino’s methodology. What you have written here demonstrates unequivocally that:

– You have no idea at all what Tamino has shown

– You reject *anything* that challenges your denial out of hand

In the end, Marcott’s proxy data can neither prove nor disprove that the 20th century warming was unprecedented in scope or speed. Asserting otherwise is the victory of hope over data.

No, this is wrong. Once again, your denial has caused you to do exactly what you claim M13 does which is to over-state your interpretation of the results. Classic denier projection.

The point has been made elsewhere that high resolution proxies such as ice cores from both hemispheres would capture a “spike” such as modern warming – but we see nothing of the kind. Furthermore, we would need a physical mechanism that would raise GAT by ~0.8C in a century then cause it to fall rapidly by about the same amount. No such mechanism has been proposed.

All of which is powerful support for M13’s conclusions which remain entirely unaffected by the frenzy of misrepresentation unleashed by the deniers.

Once again, your lack of topic knowledge enables your denial. First you were conned by others, and now you are conning yourself.

Damn, you people are funny! You don't half take yourselves seriously, are you still students' union Socialist society members or something?

Here's another gloves-off moment:

Get your heads out of your posterior orifices and take a look around.

AGW is not happening, nor is it likely to happen.

It’s pointless trying to explain to why, you’ll just froth and gibber and deploy ICBM-magnitude messenger shooting equipment, as is your custom when anybody disagrees with you. Have none of you ever grasped the concept that the first party in a debate to resort to abuse has lost? It seems not.

I say again, the AGW scare is dead, and everybody except a rapidly declining number of zealots recognises the fact.

Oh, I certainly do, as an engineer I made a successful career out of understanding the physics, and specifically, the application of the physics – and if I got it wrong, really, really bad things would have happened and I'd have been held accountable, which is a great deal than can be said for you and your fellow abusive, scientifically illiterate associates.

Everything seems to be a mystery to you, so do what zoot says yourself.

Quick, Catweasel, head down to the bookies. This must be your lucky night. You’re betting against century old climate science that is being proven stronger every month. Go for the 1000 to 1 long shots, fill that inside straight, bet double 00 on the table, play Russian roulette with impunity. In the meantime, they smart money will continue to bet against you.

Weasel, you saying it over and over again is not going to make it true. As I said, provide us with some proof, lets have some references, and lets have a substantive discussion instead of just mouthing off all the time….

Catweazle believes the overwhelming scientific opinion is a conspiracy. The melting Arctic is faked. Wildlife migrating away from the equator is faked. Winter arriving later and leaving earlier is faked. Even the facts are in on the conspiracy.

>>Catweazle believes the overwhelming scientific opinion is a conspiracy. <<

During my life I've seen more than one "overwhelming scientific opinion" totally reversed, tectonic plate theory and gastric ulcers will do for a start (I am at a loss as to why you accuse me of believing that there is a conspiracy involved, incidentally, as I have never mentioned one – unlike at least one of the Warmists posting here who is a confirmed 911 troofer, something you seem to be completely at ease with, strange that, is it OK to be one of those if you're a Warmist?), so, from experience – something you seem to signally lack – I find rigid adherence to "overwhelming scientific opinion" unimpressive, possessed of semi-religious overtones in fact.

You have cherry picked a couple of the very few examples where mainstream science has been proved wrong. You think that therefore you have proved is wrong in this case. A very shaky argument to make. The vast majority of the time it has been proved correct. You would be unwise to bet against it.

Also, the examples you have picked were in very narrow fields. Climate science is multidisciplinary, taking in pure Physics, atmospheric physics, solar physics, meteorology, hydrology, oceanography and many more. Much more difficult to develope group think in that sort of environment.

So you have virtually zero chance of being correct, especially when the ‘experts’ you rely upon to inform you are such underwhelmingly mediocre talents.

Have none of you ever grasped the concept that the first party in a debate to resort to abuse has lost? It seems not.

No. The first party in a debate to resort to evidence denial and repetitive misrepresentation has lost. Any abuse directed at vociferous serial misrepresenters is a *consequence* of their manifest intellectual dishonesty.

And you still have no idea what you are on about. Your liberal use of false equivalence is proof of that (Wegener; H.pylori). Long-established physics isn’t going to fall apart just because you are in denial. The world won’t do what you want it to, it will do what the laws of physics permit it to do. You will lose the argument you are having with physics.

As I said, you cut a ridiculous figure. And look around at your fellow denialists: Monckton, Watts, “Goddard”, Eschenbach, Tisdale etc. All more-or-less ludicrous figures continually exposed as dishonest and wrong. Over and over and over again.

What comfort can you glean from the company of clowns like these? Have you no capacity for reflection at all? None?

All wrong. You should bother to do some research into your tiny minority of contrarians and check the robustness of their various claims. You will find that not one of them has anything to say that stands up to even casual scrutiny.

If you were a sceptic, as opposed to a politically motivated science denier or in denial for other emotional reasons, you would do the necessary checking. Then you would know that your faith in this handful of mistaken individuals is desperately ill-founded.

But you aren’t a sceptic and so you have not scrutinised the various contrarian claims carefully.

BTW, linking to lunatics like John O’Sullivan only makes you look even more stupid and desperate than you do already.

As for John O’Sullivan, why would anyone cite a liar like him?

I wasn’t linking to Sullivan, I was linking to a story about Mann. Now I know the subtlety of that will have sailing whimsically over your heads, but its the very real difference between the message and the messenger. I feel sure that those whose IQ starts with a “1” will understand.

“I wasn’t linking to Sullivan, I was linking to a story about Mann. Now I know the subtlety of that will have sailing whimsically over your heads, but its the very real difference between the message and the messenger. I feel sure that those whose IQ starts with a “1″ will understand.”

Right, so you link to a proven liar to spread the message, and that isn’t going to affect the message? That’s what liars do, spread lies, therefore you can’t trust their message. You are the one with the sub zero IQ mate…

You need a three digit IQ to realise that if you post to a buffoon about anything you will rightly be judged to be a buffoon, with a buffoon’s opinions. Oh, and yes, catwheeze, the first digit must be greater than zero.

Do you people actually hear yourselves? Do you ever stop and think about the utter tripe that you throw around here? I was referring to Mann’s silly claim that he’d won the Nobel prize and linked to a story about his employer finally changing his bio to reflect the fact that the claim was bogus.

Now this is going to come as a surprise to you chaps, but just because the data was posted on a site you don’t like doesn’t make it wrong. No matter where the story was posted, it is true that bio had been changed. Simply refusing to accept the story or acknowledge the story because it came from people you don’t like is about as anti-intellectual as it gets.

You know, when Watts wrote about the 2012 eclipse in this article, it doesn’t mean the eclipse didn’t happen just because you don’t like the source of the data. No really, you’ll have to trust me on this, but there was an eclipse even though Watts wrote about it. And Mann’s bio really was changed even though O’Sullivan wrote about.

It does explain a lot however. If you remain determined to only hear or consider views from approved sources, it easily explains how you end up with such utterly screwy ideas such as BBD’s idiocy that sceptics don’t know that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates heat.

To be truly inquisitive about this (or any other issue for that matter) you simply have to be open to at least hearing the views of others. If you confine yourself to only hearing approved data, you end up being utterly uninformed, as so many of you display. Despite the fact that I think RC is largely bunkum, I ensure that I follow it assiduously since it is clearly a source of some good data and an insight into how the ‘others’ think.

I have a young niece (6 yrs) whose only knowledge of the British PM is from the Harry Potter books. Consequently she informed us that Cameron regular meets with the head of the Ministry of Magic.

Nor is it clear that recent surface trends are particularly unusual. “The term ‘hiatus’ is premature,” says planetary climatologist Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago. “Maybe with another 10 years of data you’d say that’s something that needs explanation here.”

Pierrehumbert notes that the increase in carbon dioxide’s radiative forcing over any one decade is about one-fourth of a Watt per meter-squared, so if climate sensitivity is 2 C, the expected warming is only about 0.13 C (forcing increase divided by sensitivity). That can easily be swamped by natural fluctuations of 0.2 to 0.3 C from an El Niño or La Niña, and fluctuations from longer ocean cycles.

And, he says, “There’s really nothing in this that changes our estimates of climate sensitivity.” Calculation of that all-important number from the 20th century record is not possible, because the aerosol forcing is not well known, nor are the data for ocean warming up to the task.

“Any estimate of sensitivity requires all of the record and not just the last 20 years of it,” Pierrehumbert says. “The smaller the piece of it you take, the less certainty you have in your result.”

The most robust estimates of climate sensitivity are derived from paleoclimate behaviour. See Hansen et al. (2013):Climate sensitivity, sea level, and atmospheric CO2 (Phil. Trans. Royal Soc.; in press):

We conclude that the average fast-feedback climate sensitivity during the Cenozoic is larger than the canonical 3°C for 2×CO2 (0.75°C per W/m2) that has long been the central estimate for current climate. An average 4°C for 2×CO2 (1°C per W/m2) provides a good fit to the target 1000 ppm CO2, but the sensitivity must be still higher if non-CO2 GHG forcings amplify the CO2 by less than one-third, i.e., provide less than 25% of total GHG forcing.

That’s all very commendable Weasel, and we appreciate you linking to an article which confirms everything we have been trying to get through to you. Kudos to you for trying to keep an open mind, but I just wonder why that doesn’t feed into any of the comments that you post, which are unremittingly anti AGW.

Just reinforces my point that the denierati have problems with basic English comprehension. (amongst other things). Why did Weasel even bother posting that link? It clearly contradicts just about everything he has ever said, and confirms just about everything that we have ever said.

Nor is it clear that recent surface trends are particularly unusual. “The term ‘hiatus’ is premature,” says planetary climatologist Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago. “Maybe with another 10 years of data you’d say that’s something that needs explanation here.”

What debate?

There’s no debate about the physics underpinning the GHE. See link above.

You are making the basic error of failing to distinguish between surface air temperature and OHC. Most (>90%) of the energy accumulating in the climate system is going into the oceans, not the atmosphere (Levitus et al., 2012).

Finally, let me remind you for the third time what Ray Pierrehumbert said in the reference that *you linked*:

Nor is it clear that recent surface trends are particularly unusual. “The term ‘hiatus’ is premature,” says planetary climatologist Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago. “Maybe with another 10 years of data you’d say that’s something that needs explanation here.”

Do you understand these words? If not, which bit would you like me to gloss further?

* * *

I am still waiting for you to answer several questions posed well over 24 hours ago. Doing so promptly and in detail will demonstrate that you are not purely trolling here but actually have some intellectual skin in the game. This would be a sound tactic at this point as the blog owner has warned that he is scrutinising commenters for signs of bad faith: